RPG Life Sciences Ltd. Represented by Anand & Anand, India AGAIN!!….GUILTY!! Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Morning Folks!!

And another one bites the dust! Rarely do we see  a one member panel have a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. But we do today for the domain name rpglife.com.  RPG Life Sciences Ltd. Represented by Anand & Anand, India has been found GUILTY of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. (RDNH)

Congrats guys. More about you to come. This post is just starting. You guys are already GUILTY OF REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING HERE!! You are a SERIAL Reverse Domain Name Hijacker. I think this is number Two or THREE??? Still researching. Lots of this CRAP coming from Mumbai. Seems Mumbai, India and Brazil are the leading countries these days for those being convicted of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. Quite an honor.

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2013-2094

D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking


The Respondent requests a finding of reverse domain name hijacking. This is defined in the Rules as “using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.” Moreover, paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides as follows: “If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.”

In the present case, the Panel considers that the Complainant’s professional representative should have appreciated, even on a rudimentary examination of the Policy and its application in this area, that the Complaint could not succeed where the Respondent’s Disputed Domain Name is a widely recognized acronym and is being used to promote goods and services available for purchase in that field, as it had no reasonable hope of meeting the conjunctive requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

Accordingly, the Panel accepts the Respondent’s allegation that the Complaint was filed in willful disregard of the requirements of the Policy. It is clear to the Panel that the Complainant knew or ought to have known that the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name could not, under any fair interpretation of the reasonably available facts, have constituted registration and use in bad faith. The Panel therefore finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. (See Futureworld Consultancy (Pty) Limited v. Online AdviceWIPO Case No. D2003-0297Kur- und Verkehrsverein St. Moritz v. Domain Finance Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2004-0158).

The Complaint speculates that “such strategies of creating domain names incorporating well known trademarks is a strategy typically used by cybersquatters so that they can force the Complainant to buy the impugned domain name at an exorbitant price and the Respondent may, in the future, offer to sell the domain name at an unreasonable price to the Complainant”. Initiating domain name dispute resolution proceedings necessarily involves putting the parties to a considerable expenditure of time and in many cases cost and the Policy must not be used unless the complainant has a reasonable and credible belief it is entitled to succeed. In particular, proceedings must not be commenced in an unjustifiable attempt to pressure a domain name owner into releasing a legitimately held domain name predating any trademark rights held by the complainant, see Sustainable Forestry Management Limited v. SFM.com and James M. van Johns “Infa dot Net” Web ServicesWIPO Case No. D2002-0535.

Further, the Complaint has misconceived the nature of UDRP proceedings in citing other domain names registered by the Complainant that contain the words “rpg life” including the following domains , , , and as evidence that “clearly shows that our client has exclusive rights in domain names contained in the mark RPG LIFE”. UDRP proceedings are concerned with abusive registration of domain names and are not a test of who has the better rights to a disputed domain name nor who holds the most similar domain names.

Finally, it should also be said that it was the Complainant who, on no evidence at all, accused the Respondent of acting in bad faith and that there was “no plausible explanation” as to the Respondent’s use (and presumably choice) of the Disputed Domain Name. That, itself, is an act of bad faith and is part of the reason why the Panel has made the finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. Such allegations should not be made lightly or without cogent evidence to support them and certainly not where, after obtaining instructions, it must have been apparent to the Complainant that no such allegation could properly be made against the Respondent. Indeed, in a curious inversion of the roles of the Complainant and the Respondent, it was the Complainant who tendered evidence that the Respondent’s website was ostensibly concerned with Role Playing Games and activities associated with it and hence entirely legitimate and in good faith.

The Panel therefore makes a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

7. Decision


For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.

Nicholas Weston
Sole Panelist
Date: December 30, 2013

 

 

Spy Optic, Inc. represented by Stetina Brunda Garred & Brucker found GUILTY Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Morning Folks!!

TheDomains.com is reporting "Spy Optic, Inc. of Carlsbad, California, United States of America, represented by the law firm Stetina Brunda Garred & Brucker has been found guilty Reverse Domain Name Hijacking on SpyOpticsOutlet.com."

Well Stetina Brunda Garred & Brucker you are about to be infamous! You and your client Spy Optic, Inc. of Carlsbad who will now reside on HallofShame.com for all time and for all to see.

Stetina Brunda Garred & Brucker I am going after YOU! And here are some of the reasons:

"The panelist took the complainant and its council “out to the wood shed”  over the complainant in which it cut and pasted language from another UDRP filing on another domain name SpyOpticsOutlet.org, owned by another person, into this complaint.

The panel was not happy and found RDNH although the domain holder didn’t respond."

Congrats guys! Stetina Brunda Garred & Brucker was beaten by a GHOST! You are now on the HallofShame.com. Well done!! Our INDUSTRY owns YOUR name!

You have been labeled and I have new content! Works out well for one of us!

And folks, I am going to focus more and more on these law firms. One attorney can bring down a firm of 1000. And if not bring them down, stain their reputation in a way that can never be fixed. NEVER!!!! Are you listening law firms?? NEVER be fixed. Are YOU willing to risk your PERSONAL reputation along with the reputation of the firm you work for and everyone working there? Because that is exactly what you are doing Stetina Brunda Garred & Brucker and other scum-bucket law firms engaged in this practice. YOU KNOW BETTER!! YOU are just as GUILTY as your client. Deal with it!

Remember, with each case of RDNH I will get a bit harsher. A bit louder. And this will CIRCULATE a bit further. Your PEERS will see and hear about this. You have STAINED your name in  a way that can not be fixed. My job is to point it out. So get mad at me?? Fine. Get mad a WIPO you low life worms!

Here is YOUR listing Stetina Brunda Garred & Brucker!

Rick Schwartz

HallofShame.com to Add Attorney Section. Will List Each and Every Firm that has been Engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking!

Morning Once Again Folks!!

With each Reverse Domain Name Hijacking decision there is about to be a new price to be paid.

Starting next week, we are going to publish the name of each and every attorney and the law firms they REPRESENT and have the listed permanently on HallofShame.com.

There will be a link to each firm so they KNOW!

Folks, I am out to stop this and I will. Period! Lawyers know better. Now THEY are at risk of not only sinking their own careers but bring down their entire law firm with them. This is not fixable for them. But it can be stopped for us.

They know better! Their firms know better. And now they have to live with the consequences of their actions.

Rick Schwartz

Thank You! Now my Strategy to END Reverse Domain Name Hijacking in ONE Year!

Morning Folks!!

There are MILLIONS, no scratch that TENS of MILLIONS. No scratch that. HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of people worldwide that own a domain name. That's a lot of people sharing something in common. I believe that Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is a newsworthy item that has yet to really make big news. My goal with HallofShame.com is to take a common and universal mainstream saying that cuts thru all business and industry and sport and everything else is the perfect intersection to put out a "Distress Sign".

To change how things are first you need awareness. That happens by circulating what it is you want people to be aware of. How you circulate is key. Grassroots is the least expensive way to get something noticed at first. Like minded people who want a similar outcome band together and do what they can. Yesterday you did that when I posted this plea. Nearly 100 f you "Tweeted" and 25 of you "Liked" the site as I write this. That is a HUGE step in circulating our story and maybe theirs as well.

HallofShame.com is at an International Intersection. It just has to be noticed by one news outlet, reporter or VICTIM and this will go into the second stage orbit. I love taking an embryo like this to market and have it shake some bushes and rattle some cages. They can try to blame me but they better look to those internal folks that made the stupid decision of allowing me to do what I do best. BRAND! These companies are BRANDED! My job, our job is to circulate and move the needle.

So thank you for helping me to do something proactive and begin the process of planting seeds each and every day until one day there is a tree and another and another and another. If you get a cease and desist or you get served with a WIPO or NAF suit and you KNOW you are not infringing on any trademarks, just point them to HallofShame.com and let them think about what they are doing. Let them think long and hard. Let them reconsider.

Lastly, the subject of fines. I am NOT in favor of a mere fine! What is $100k penalty when you are trying to steal a million dollar domain? Come on! I am fighting for a CRIMINAL penalty. That's what you do with thieves whether successful at stealing or not. A fine won't stop this, SHAME or imprisonment will. So NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in a fine. NONE! Fine and imprisonment? Ok, I am on board with that. But until then, we will SHAME these folks and let it be a warning to others that WE as an industry OWN THEIR REPUTATIONS.

My goal, let these companies get interviewed by media and ask them why they did this and if they would like to join me in discouraging this type behavior in the future. Maybe share the lessons they have learned as a warning to others. Maybe even reimburse the domain owner for their legal expenses.

Bottom line, I will PROVE that SHAME trumps dollars. I will prove that my way of ending Reverse Domain Name Hijacking will be MOST effective and IMMEDIATE. I think especially attorneys need to be aware that they are aiding and abetting thieves and NOW they are doing it KNOWINGLY. There is no longer an excuse.

And as I said, everyone with even 1 domain name, especially one domain name, can sympathize with our position. They can put themselves in our shoes and get just as angry. And when they do get angry, they will take their anger out on those they do business with that were engaged in this disgusting act of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking!

My mission will be COMPLETE by this time next year or sooner. But even if it takes years, I will be right here! So you can help or not, but don't you DARE sit on the sidelines and criticize this effort unless YOU are willing to do something bigger, better, and do it right now! Naysayers are people who bring NOTHING to the table and have no place in my orbit and should have no place in yours either. We have a MISSION to accomplish and we WILL.

Rick Schwartz

Jaguar/Land Rover Found GUILTY of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH)

Afternoon Folks!!

When will these CHEAP BASTARDS ever learn? I can also call them would be THIEVES which is a LOT worse. I'll let everyone else play nice. I will keep calling them out until this stops. Sorry to the politically correct. You don't play nice with people who abuse the process and try to STEAL! You stick it up their asses, never let them forget and let it serve as a lesson to the next PREDATOR.

As Michael Berkens has reported today, Jaguar/Land Rover is the latest to have been found GUILTY of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) on the domain name MountainRovers.com. Complainant is Jaguar Land Rover Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Jennifer M. Hetu of Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP, Michigan, USA.

Hope you folks are PROUD!!??

Another company run by CHEAP BASTARDS that has TARNISHED a brand forever! I am sure these idiots will be pissed at me, but they should be pissed at whoever internally signed off on this RISK to a Grand BRAND. If they worked for me, they would not see lunchtime. So let their anger flow! And why didn't they get a heads up by Jennifer M. Hetu of Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP?? Surely at this stage you would think.......

They join a growing list of BIG names like Procter and Gamble and what I called the "Biggest Management Shakeup in 100 Years" in being labeled thieves by the governing panel. Let's see if heads roll before the end of the year on this mess. The entire decision can be found here and it is quite the read. DomainNameWire labels it as a "Scathing Critique".

The attempt was so blatant, that the panel found for the respondent without the respondent even answering the complaint. A HUGE VICTORY for all!! But this is a really  GREAT case because there was no response by the domain owner and the panel still found Jaguar/LandRover guilty of RDNH. Jennifer M. Hetu of Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP, Michigan, USA got defeated by a ghost. How does a debacle like this unfold?

You can be certain I will have more to say about Jaguar and Land Rover and how they have soiled their brand. Cheap vs PRICELESS! Who is responsible there for this mess?? Who made that decision? Who approved it? Who?? Can you say SHAKE UP??!!

And I get to point to and USE Jaguar/Land Rover and Procter and Gamble to discourage the next CHEAP BASTARD that would rather STEAL than PAY!

Now as I offered Procter and Gamble, Jaguar/Land Rover can come here and respond or hide under their desks, think it is no biggie, then wait until the fallout happens. I will add them to the current list and repost. The Hall of Shame! The Scarlett letter. They OWN it!

Some say $100,000 fine would discourage this behavior.

CHUMP CHANGE!!

The price they pay NOW is far more serious and far more lasting. It's tarnishing a BILLION DOLLAR brand. The harm that was done was PRICELESS. It can't be measured, erased or fixed. $100,000 fine does not discourage and may even encourage. People losing their jobs over things like this is a much bigger price to pay but that is a small price to pay in comparison to the self-inflicted damage they have done. Their decision, whoever made them, whoever was involved in it should be fired. They risked the companies good name for what reason?? Folks should be able to see inexcusable a mile away.

MORE TO COME!

Rick Schwartz

 

Consuela, LLC represented by Erik Paul Belt of McCarter English, LLP, MA, USA, GUILTY, Reverse Domain Name Hijacking of Consuela.com

Morning Folks!!

Another great day for domainers!

Guys, your NAMES are in Lights!! Congrats! Way to go! Proud???

Hey Morons, it's called capitalism! If you want something you PAY for it you don't try and abuse the systems so you can STEAL it. So now you have to live with the consequences of you being labled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker" forever.

Consuela, LLC  represented by Erik Paul Belt of McCarter English, LLP, Massachusetts, USA.  Live with it!! Hope you are PROUD! You are now case #44 below.

I will repost the following post each and every time there is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Decision. The best thing domain owners can do is Tweet, Like, Post and/or Share. So just don't sit there! You CAN do something to circulate these offenders. So do it! That's REAL SEO! I need your HELP. I can't do this alone. Charity starts at home and that means protecting what is yours. 

Want to stop RDNH and get the $$$ instead of a NAF or WIPO action? THIS is the way to start. Someday there WILL be a legal and CRIMINAL penalty but until then there IS a social penalty if YOU CHOOSE. And believe me, the social penalty is MUCH more severe than a fine that can be easily absorbed and forgotten about. This is PERMANENT! THEY have to live with the social consequences of their actions. The best thing you can do is Tweet, Like and/or Share instead of throwing your hands up in the air and doing NOTHING! Doing nothing is what these little pricks count on! Let them know! I can only do so much and I need your help to DEFEAT this practice.

Consuela, LLC  represented by Erik Paul Belt of McCarter English, LLP, Massachusetts, USA found GUILTY Reverse Domain Name Hijacking of Consuela.com

Morning Folks!!

There really is a penalty for Reverse Domain Name Hijacking and it is far more severe than anything monetary. I have been defending my domains from predators and would-be Domain Name Hijackers for over 14 years. When the Saveme.com case (Start at bottom of link page) came to me as a GIFT about 16 months ago I RELISHED my opportunity to change things. It was such a slam dunk that I was going to make this case an example for others and a warning of the SEVERE CONSEQUENCES that come with it. I may lose a domain, but a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER loses their entire reputation and it can't be repaired.

When I was a kid my parents and my teachers would scare me to be good as they would tell me if I was bad it would be on my "Permanent Record". Well when you commit a crime, it is on your permanent record. Misbehaving in school? Not so much.

So I have used the SaveMe.com case as well as others like Procter and Gamble to illustrate just how bad a decision trying to STEAL somebody else's domain really is. And so I did. I PROMISED to make Márcio Mello Chaves FAMOUS!! Promise kept baby!!

Go to Google or go to Bing and search for Márcio Mello Chaves or Marcio Mello Chaves.

THAT is how SEO REALLY works!!!

RELEVANCY!! Be relevant and you will have no problem being searched. Marcio Mello Chavez is relevant to Ricksblog.com and more importantly to Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. How does he EVER fix it?? It's a permanent record of FACT!

Search procter and gamble domains. You no longer get a list of domains they own.

So I believe the SOCIAL PENALTY far outweighs anything else. A $100k fine is nothing when you talk of a 7 figure domain and a multi-billion dollar company. A win could be viewed as a "Discount".  But when you have to deal with the SOCIAL FALLOUT, it is MUCH more SEVERE and I am proving it!

The Scarlett Letter of Domain Hijacking will follow those throughout their entire lifetimes and beyond. Here are MY POSTS about Reverse Domain Name Hijacking and those involved. The NEXT guy DESERVES what he gets because he has been warned and I am going to change their futures more than they can change their futures.

So this July 4th I feel like this year has been the turning point in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). And yes, I like to write out in full Reverse Domain Name Hijacking as many times as I can to associate a name with the deed! My only obligation to a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker is to make them FAMOUS! They try to destroy MY BUSINESS or YOUR BUSINESS?? Then they MUST live with the PERMANENT consequences. Did they show you mercy? Well they are warned and they OWN their decisions.

Did the biggest Company Shake up in 100 YEARS at Procter and Gamble have something to do with Reverse Domain Name Hijacking? Don't discount the possibility! Somebody made the decision to SOIL their companies stellar name. In government it may be overlooked or you get promoted. In business, you get you ASS kicked to the curb with all involved! And deservedly so!

I have 18 years and many millions of dollars invested in my online business as well as many of you readers. So if some IDIOT thinks he can just STEAL our hard work by hiring some hotshot and thinking $15k is all the skin they have in the game, then they have to live with the fallout and that fallout can be severe and  life changing. That's what BOTH the attorney and the client get from now on because attorney's know better at this point in time. So the job of the attorney is not be part of a hijacking and to AID and ABET. It is to educate their client or FIRE their client. Your CHOICE and just remember that YOUR NAME will be included in the fallout. It's not up to you and it is not in your control once you AID and ABET. And make NO MISTAKE, the panels today are not ignorant. The attorney is the mastermind of the hijacking as well as the driver of the car the way I see it. You have been hired as a contract hit man but the hit is not on a person, it is on property. Your client is in the back seat directing you and paying YOU to help him HIJACK a domain name. The MOMENT you go along with that, you are just as guilty because YOU KNOW what you are doing. It is premeditated. You are just as guilty aren't you my attorney??

Wrong minded? ok. But THAT is EXACTLY the way I see the roles and THAT is the passion I will write with every single time. Remember we are not talking about an honest difference of opinion where you need a ruing. We are talking when that ruling comes in that STATES that you have ABUSED the process. For that Mr. Attorney, YOU will be held accountable. Your choice? Tell your client the FACTS or FIRE your client. It may be the most important decision you ever make in life. And I get to write about YOU and mention NAMES whenever I feel like.

Molly Megee Hankins and Heitor Chavez are examples of what I am talking about as they represented Reverse Domain Name Hijackers and knew better! I will add more to the list as I look through the decisions to see which lawyers abused the process. 

I am going to stop this practice in it's tracks! If you are a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER or are found GUILTY of ABUSING the process, then You and your attorney will be known far and wide and throughout the world and it will follow you folks like a shadow on sunny days AND cloudy days and even in the dark!

Then you have the KING of all. Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL who represented Procter and Gamble. Have THEY been fired? Let me give them a second mention Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. I would assume these are top notch folks. HOW could they ALLOW their client to walk into this? I guess it would  take real balls to fire P&G. They might lose the account? Wonder if they were fired?

So if you are being unfairly threatened about your domain name, just point them here. It is FREE and EFFECTIVE because it is all based on FACT and PASSION! Give them a little window into how things may unfold because when YOU WIN and they get found GUILTY of REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING, I am going to write about them right here and make them famous too!

And what can you do? Circulate this post. Retweet it. Like it. Comment on Linkedin. Circulate it. THAT is a very small effort to help protect your livelihood and your assets that costs nothing and helps put these folks on notice. THAT is how to help STOP Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Rick Schwartz

Here is the current list I have of RDNH cases with our newest inductee. This list that the NEXT SCHMUCK gets to join and LIVE WITH!

So from now on we must ROAST these Reverse Domain Name Hijackers (RDNH). Ah you say but Rick what have you been doing if you are not already roasting them? Well there are some innovative ways we will begin to get the attention of these companies. But we will leave that for another day because this CONTENT is right here and not going away anytime soon.

Harsh? You bet!! These folks join Procter and Gamble and any others. But P&G BOUGHT the domain name later on.

Try to hijack a domain name and you will be shamed publicly because public opinion is the way to stop bad behavior when the laws out there are not adequate enough to do the job. Each of these companies will receive an increasingly HARSHER post from me because they are not ignorant of what they are doing. In almost every case they KNEW what they were doing and their INTENT was to STEAL using a governing body as their pawns!

The PUBLIC now OWNS the reputation of each of these companies and individuals as well as the attorney's that KNOWINGLY aid and abet because they KNOW BETTER. They are all now BRANDED in the most despicable way and so all the $$$ they spent to familiarize us with their products just got a mighty damaging blow.

Well there have been more findings of Reverse Domain Hijacking in the last 12 months that any preceding 12 month period. So the cat is out of the bag and they can no longer fool panels into being their unknowing accomplice.

So when I get threats, THIS IS WHAT THEY CAN LOOK FORWARD TO

I have 43 such cases so far of RDNH and this resource has 129 or more. Each win will discourage the next would-be hijacker. A tip of the hat to all owners below that fought and a big congrats to the attorney that represented them! I will list any and all cases as I learn of them. In time we hope decisions like these will will make the next IDIOT think twice before they attempt to STEAL something they have no legal or moral rights to. We now OWN YOUR REPUTATION and we will circulate!

And a special tip of the hat to John Berryhill who is the leading RDNH attorney in the world. I am counting and will post how many wins he has recorded on behalf of his clients. I would guess about 1/3 of all decisions. So if you are up against Berryhill or Neu or Goldberger, or Keating or a few others, good luck! You'll need it. Save yourself a great loss and embarrassment and WITHDRAW your case and send the other party their expense money and then get down to this thing we call "Capitalism" and NEGOTIATE!!

Otherwise you get to be labeled what "I" want to label you as and you will be tagged with that DESERVED recognition each and every time a new client does a search to find the good, the bad and the ugly. Want to know which group "Fuckers" will end up in?

And with each conviction I will be a bigger PRICK than the post before UNTIL this crap stops and will begin the tedious job of making REVERSE DOMAIN HIJACKING a CRIMINAL offense as we move forward.

If you are on thin ice, and found out to be GUILTY, you and your company will be listed right here and in all future blog posts and interviews relating to this and I reserve my right to use your attempted theft at every chance I get. Let the PUBLIC decide who is the THIEF! Who is the party found GUILTY of REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING! Each case will be included in the book I am writing as well.

SaveMe.com The Grand daddy of RDNH. Here is my post on this very big win against Márcio Mello Chaves, aka Márcio Chaves aka Marcio Chaves.

The Complainant is G.W.H.C. - Serviços Online Ltda., E-Commerce Media Group Informação e Tecnologia Ltda. of Sao Paulo, Brazil, represented by Almeida Advogados, Brazil. Found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

But in even a bigger case, Swash.com Complainant Procter and Gamble Represented by Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. Procter and Gamble is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker.

Case #1 is our Friend Scott Day of Digimedia who won a $100k+ judgment againstGOFORIT ENTERTAINMENT, LLC who IS a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER.

Case #2 Rain.com Media Rain LLC engaged in Reverse Domain Hijacking

Case #3 CinemaCity.com The Complainant is Prime Pictures LLC of Dubai, United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), represented by Law offices of Vince Ravine, PC, United States of America (“USA”). Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #4 CollectiveMedia.com The Complainant is Collective Media, Inc., New York, United States of America, represented by Lowenstein Sandler PC, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #5 Elk.com The Complainant is ELK Accesories Pty Ltd. of Preston, Australia represented by Pointon Partners, Australia is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #6 ForSale.ca Globe Media International Corporation is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #7 Mess.com Kiwi Shoe Polish Company, The Complainant is Mess Enterprises, San Francisco, California, of United States of America, represented by Steve Clinton, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #8 Goldline.com The Complainant is Goldline International, Inc., represented by Spataro & Associates is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #9 K2R.com The complainant is a Swiss company, K2r Produkte AG of Haggenstrasse45, CH 9014 St. Gallen, Switzerland is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #10 CarSales.com The Complainant is carsales.com.au Limited of Burwood, Victoria, Australia represented by Corrs Chambers, Westgarth, Australia is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #11 Proto.com The Complainant is Proto Software, Inc., New York, New York, United States of America, represented by Byron Binkley, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #12 TrailBlazer.com The Complainant is Trailblazer Learning, Inc. dba Trailblazer, Caledonia, Michigan, United States of America, Self-represented by Brett W. Company COO, Caledonia, Michigan, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker.

Case #13 DreamGirls.com The Complainant is Dreamgirls, Inc., Tampa, Florida, United States of America, represented by Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP, Los Angeles, California, United States of America and have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker".

Case #14 Mexico.com The Complainant is Consejo de Promoción Turística de México, S.A. de C.V., Colonia Anzures, Mexico, represented by Bello, Guzmán, Morales Y Tsuru, S.C., Mexico is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #15 Windsor.com Complainant in this administrative proceeding is Windsor Fashions, Inc., a California corporation with a principal place of business in Los Angeles, California, United States of America. Complainant is represented in this proceeding by Abraham M. Rudy, Esq. and Julie Waldman, Esq., Weisman, Wolff, Bergman, Coleman, Grodin & Evall LLP, Beverly Hills, California, United States of America. They have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker".

Case #16 Mindo.com Complainants are Scandinavian Leadership AB and Mindo AB of Uppsala, Sweden, internally represented. They have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker".

Case # 17 and Sha.com he Complainant is Albir Hills Resort, S.A. of Alfaz del Pi Alicante, Spain, represented by PADIMA, Abogados y Agentes de Propiedad Industrial, S.L., Spain. They have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker".

Case # 18 etatil.com The Complainants are ÖZALTUN OTELCİLİK TURİZM VE TİCARET LTD. ŞTİ. of Istanbul, Turkey, Allstar Hotels LLC of New York, Unites States of America and Mr. Metin ALTUN of Istanbul, Turkey, represented by Istanbul Patent & Trademark Consultancy Ltd., Turkey. They have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker".

Case # 19 Takeout.com. Complainant is Tarheel Take-Out, LLC of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America (“U.S.”), represented internally. They have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker".

Case # 20 WallStreet.com  The Complainant is Wall-Street.com, LLC of Florida, United States of America (the “United States” or “US”), represented by Flint IP Law, United States. They have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker".

Case # 21 parvi.org found for the complainant in 2009 but in 2012 the courts rules that theCity of Paris, France was guilty of "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking" in a landmark case that resulted in a $125,000 judgement against the city.

Case #22 Gtms.com The Complainant is Sustainable Forestry Management Limited, a company incorporated under the laws of Bermuda, with its principal place of business in London, United Kingdom. The Complainant is represented by its general counsel, Mr. Eric Bettelheim. They have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker".

Case #23 PetExpress.com The Complaintant is Airpet Animal Transport, Inc. represented by Mark W. Good of Terra Law LLP, California, USA. They have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker"

Case #24 ColdFront.com Complainant is Personally Cool Inc. (“Complainant”), New York, USA. They have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker"

Case #25 Unive.com Complainant is Coöperatie Univé U.A. of Arnhem, Netherlands, represented by Novagraaf Nederland B.V., Netherlands. "Given the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding"

Case #26  eCase.com AINS, INC(“Complainant”), represented by Janice W. Housey of Symbus Law Group,  LLC, Virginia, USA. The panel concludes that the Complaint was brought in bad faith in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Case #27 TinyPrint.com Complainant is Tiny Prints, Inc(“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA "Complaint was brought in bad faith and that, accordingly, Complainant has attempted to engage in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking"

Case #28 Enki.com Complainant is Enki LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Eric A. Novikoff, of California, USA. "This is a frivolous proceeding which should never have been filed by Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant is guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking"

Case #29 SFM.com Complainant is State Fund Mutual Insurance Co. represented by Peter G. Nikolai, of Nikolai & Mersereau, P.A., Minnesota, USA The Panel finds "Complainant has engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking."

Case  #30 Swash.com Complainant Procter and Gamble Represented by Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. Procter and Gamble is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

"It is impossible to believe that the Complainant, who employs ultra-sophisticated marketing methods, was not aware that the disputed domain name, <swash.com>, had been registered and used by other entities for some years when the Complainant introduced its SWASH product line in 2009. 

The entire Panel finds it more extraordinary still that in its Complaint the Complainant represented the SWASH brand to be a worldwide brand of longstanding with multi-million dollar sales, stating that over the last 4 years alone the brand had gained sales of over USD 40,000,000. When this was challenged by the Respondent, the Complainant was forced to admit that the brand had only been on the market for 4 years, that sales had been restricted to the USA and that sales over those four years had totaled under USD 60,000. 

Had the Respondent failed to respond, there is a very real risk that the Panel, relying upon the 1993 International registration and the substantial sales volumes claimed for the brand, would have found in favor of the Complainant. This Complaint fell very far short of what the Panel was entitled to expect from a Complainant of this stature.

In all of the circumstances present here, the Panel finds that the Complainant has abused the process in an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking in contravention of the UDRP Rules at paragraph 15(e). The Panel majority also finds the Complainant has attempted reverse domain name hijacking because it must have known that the Respondent did not know of (nor had any reason to be aware of) any relevant trade mark rights in the SWASH name when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2004."

Case  #31 3dCafe.com Complainant is 3DCafe, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Danielle I. Mattessich of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. The panel finds "Complainant acted in bad faith. The Panel therefore makes a finding of reverse domain name hijacking."

Case  #32 xPand.com The Complainant is X6D Limited of Limassol, Cyprus, represented by Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, United States of America. "The Panel therefore accepts the Respondent’s allegation that the Complainant is using the UDRP as an alternative purchase strategy after the acquisition of the disputed domain name failed. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt of reverse domain name hijacking: The Complainant knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered in bad faith."

Case  #33 Webpass.com The Complainant is Webpass, Inc. of San Francisco, California, United States of America represented by Law Office of Richard J. Greenstone, United States of America.

D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking


Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines Reverse Domain Name Hijacking:

“Reverse Domain Name Hijacking means using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.”

The general conditions for a finding of bad faith on the part of a complainant are well stated in Smart Design LLC v. Carolyn Hughes, WIPO Case No. D2000-0993 (October 18, 2000):

“Clearly, the launching of an unjustifiable Complaint with malice aforethought qualifies, as would the pursuit of a Complaint after the Complainant knew it to be insupportable.”

These conditions are confirmed in Goldline International, Inc. v. Gold Line, WIPO Case No. D2000-1151 (January 4, 2001) and Sydney Opera House Trust v. Trilynx Pty. Limited, WIPO Case No. D2000-1224 (October 31, 2000) (where the condition is stated as “the respondent must show knowledge on the part of the complainant of the respondent’s right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and evidence of harassment or similar conduct by the complainant in the face of such knowledge”), which in turn cites Plan Express Inc. v. Plan Express, WIPO Case No. D2000-0565 (July 17, 2000).

The Complainant knew when it filed the Complaint that the registration of the disputed domain name preceded by several years any rights that the Complainant may have acquired in the mark WEB PASS. Indeed, the Complainant annexes a printout of the WhoIs registration to the Complaint, and that printout indicates that the domain name was created well before the Complainant’s first use in commerce of its mark. In this Panel’s view, this is sufficient to find reverse domain name hijacking. See NetDeposit, Inc. v. NetDeposit.com, WIPO Case No.D2003-0365 (July 22, 2003) (finding reverse domain name hijacking because “Respondent's domain name registration preceded the Complainant's creation of its trademark rights”).

The Panel finds that the Complainant has attempted Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Case  #34 BSA.com Complainant is Bin Shabib & Associates (BSA) LLP (“Complainant”), represented by Jimmy Haoula, United Arab Emirates.

The panel finds that Complainant has failed to present any evidence to support its claimed rights in the disputed domain name.  It only provided an application for trademark registration which does not establish any enforceable rights under the UDRP.  It did not offer any evidence to support a finding of common law rights in the disputed mark.  Also, the Panel finds that Complainant knew or should have known that it was unable to prove that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name or that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.  Based on the foregoing, the panel finds that reverse domain name hijacking has occurred.

See NetDepositVerkaik v. Crownonlinemedia.com, D2001-1502 (WIPO Mar. 19, 2002) (“To establish reverse domain name hijacking, Respondent must show knowledge on the part of the complainant of the Respondent’s right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name and evidence of harassment or similar conduct by the Complainant in the fact of such knowledge.”); see also Labrada Bodybuilding Nutrition, Inc. v. Glisson, FA 250232 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 28, 2004) (finding that complainant engaged in reverse domain name hijacking where it used “the Policy as a tool to simply wrest the disputed domain name in spite of its knowledge that the Complainant was not entitled to that name and hence had no colorable claim under the Policy”).

Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED. The Panel further finds that Complainant engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking."

Case #35 adjudicate.org.au The Complainant is Adjudicate Today Pty Limited of Mona Vale, New South Wales, Australia represented by Moray & Agnew, Australia. The domain, adjudicate.org.au. Futureworld Consultancy (Pty) Limited v. Online AdviceWIPO Case No. D2003-0297 states that a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking may be made if the Complainant “knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered or used in bad faith”. Given that the Complainant would have been aware that the Respondent had a more than negligible adjudication business in Australia at the time the Complaint was filed, the Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant knew or should have known that it could not prove that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that this is an instance of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Case #36 Joopa.com Complainant is Edward Smith (“Complainant”), represented by Kuscha Abhyanker of Raj Abhyanker P.C., California, USA.  “the Complainant filed its trademark application shortly after it was unable to acquire the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent on acceptable terms. "The panel finds that failing in this effort, the Complainant undertook to use the Policy to acquire the Disputed Domain Name.” “The panel finds that the Complaint has attempted reverse domain name hijacking in violation of the Rules.”

Case #37 PoliceAuction.com Complainant is Vortal Group, Inc(“Complainant”), represented by Roger N. Behle Jr., of Behle Law Corporation, 575 Anton Boulevard, Suite 710, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. "Moreover, the Panel finds that filing a UDRP proceeding - which on its face can be qualified as frivolous - without any basis to do so should be construed in the present case as harassing. Here, Complainant admitted it knew that the domain name was registered prior to its using the at-issue mark in commerce. When, as in the present case, Complainant is unable to show trademark rights through use or otherwise which predate registration of the at-issue domain name, then it becomes impossible for it to prevail. In the case before the Panel, there is no way that Complainant could have reasonably expected to prevail and its counsel should have known better." Vortal Group, Inc. is a convicted Reverse Domain Name Hijacker and "counsel should have known better"

Case #38 Opulence.com Complainant is Horizon Publishing, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Marc J. Kesten of Marc J. Kesten, P.L., Florida, USA.
Horizon Publishing, LLC of Fort Lauderdale, Florida is the latest to be labeled a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER by the governing body.

Case #39 Avayo.net Complainant is Avaya Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Joseph Englander of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Florida, USA. “The Respondent correctly notes that the Complainant has previously filed domain name cases, and lost in two of such cases when it brought proceedings against legitimate businesses such as the Respondent.  See Avaya Inc. v. Sudhir Sazena, FA 1229266 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 9, 2008); and Avaya Inc. v. Moayyad Hamad, FA 1456063 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2012). ” “Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complaint was submitted in an attempt to hijack Respondent’s domain name” Avaya Inc. is a convicted Reverse Domain Name Hijacker 

Case #40 hivinnocencegrouptruth.com and hivinnocenceprojecttruth.com. Office of Medical & Scientific Justice, Inc. represented by Matthew H. Swyers of The Trademark Company, LLC, Virginia, USA. was found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) in attempted theft of the domain names.

Case #41 Complainant is the Honorable Ron Paul of Lake Jackson, Texas, United States of America, represented by LeClairRyan, United States of America." Ron Paul has been found GUILTY of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. I certainly invite the congressman and/or the domain owner to comment here or even write a guest blog post. 

Case #42  The Complainant is Ryan P. Boggs of Los Angeles, California, United States of America, represented by Molly Megee Hankins, ESQ., United States of America. The three person panel found (pdf) that Boggs “engaged in duplicitous dealings with the Respondent in relation to potential purchase of the disputed domain name”. "Complaint makes express and implied assertions that are false. These false assertions might have misled the Panel had not the Respondent provided the evidence, readily available to the Complainant, that refutes these assertions. Furthermore, it is simply not fair to require the Respondent to provide evidence establishing that the Complainant’s case is without basis when the Complainant must have, or at least should have, known this fact. The egregiousness of these deficiencies of the Complaint is compounded by the fact that the Complainant was represented by counsel. "

Case #43 Complainant is Aptus Tech LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Max Moskowitz, of Ostrolenk Faber LLP, New York, USA.  Respondent is Name Administration Inc. (BVI)(“Respondent”), represented by John Berryhill, Pennsylvania, USA

Aptus Tech LLC represented by Max Moskowitz, of Ostrolenk Faber LLP, has now been found GUILTY of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. (RDNH)

"In this case, the evidence indicates that Complainant clearly knew that the disputed domain name was registered many years before it could establish rights in the KLIPZ mark and, thus, that it would not be able to establish that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, which is one of elements one must establish in order to prevail under the Policy."

Case #44 Consuela, LLC  represented by Erik Paul Belt of McCarter English, LLP, Massachusetts, USA found GUILTY Reverse Domain Name Hijacking of Consuela.com Respondent is Alberta Hot Rods (“Respondent”), represented by Ari Goldberger of Esqwire.com Law Firm, New Jersey, USA.

"According to the majority of the Panel, not only did the Complainant present its Complaint when it was obvious that it could not succeed, it actually pressed its case by submitting an Additional Submission which did not address the key issue raised by the Respondent.  The Complainant thus harassed the Respondent by pursing the Complaint after the Complainant knew it to be insupportable.

A minority of the Panel is of the view that reverse domain name hijacking should not be found without evidence of some knowing effort to seize someone else's intellectual property.  However, the minority accepts the majority’s view.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complaint was submitted in an attempt to the hijack the Respondent’s domain name."

 

My hope is this is the last RDNH case I will ever have to post. The reality is this post will be re-posted EVERY SINGLE TIME there is a case of RDNH. Every time and now maybe some value based companies will think twice before flirting with this tactic and come to the bargaining table un good faith instead of being labeled forever with bad faith. The net is written in INK!

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL! Stop trying to steal and start doing BUSINESS! Feel free to repost FAR and WIDE!

Rick Schwartz

 

Reverse Domain Name Hijackings 2000-2013. All 143 Cases Sorted by Year.

Morning Folks,

The gamble is still in their favor but our job is to skewer the folks so bad that any rational person or entity would think twice before trying to STEAL the property of others by abusing the system. These cases are all OUTRAGEOUS! Many of the attorneys were complicit with this scheme and they too should and are being outed.

I want to thank Nat Cohen for allowing me to republish his RDNH.COM list of ALL known Reverse Domain Name Hijacking cases. I am hoping to include the company and the attorney when I have some time. 2002 saw the most RDNH cases with 20. So far in 2013 we have 13 such findings as compared to 14 for all of 2012.

The list below has no emotion. Just the links and the facts. Leave it to me to provide the commentary.

What can you do? CIRCULATE!! Tweet, Like, Share! Or don't complain.

Rick Schwartz






































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Domain Venue Case Number/Reason Decision Date
qtrade.com eResolution AF-0169 6/19/2000
k2r.com WIPO D2000-0622 8/23/2000
safaricasino.com eResolution AF-2088 10/4/2000
smartdesign.com WIPO D2000-0993 10/18/2000
ezstreet.net WIPO legitimate interest - complainant knew 11/13/2000
tradesite.com eResolution AF-0473 12/15/2000
dw.com WIPO legitimate rights - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence; delay 1/2/2001
goldline.com WIPO D2000-1151 1/4/2001
onu.com eResolution AF-0672 2/16/2001
ode.com WIPO D2001-0074 5/1/2001
moneyplanet.com/travelplanet.com WIPO D2001-0217 5/7/2001
formulationworkstation.com WIPO legitimate interest - complainant knew 6/18/2001
armani.com WIPO misrepresentation 7/20/2001
itmetrixx.com WIPO D2001-0668 8/2/2001
cream.com WIPO TM - not valid; deception; legitimate rights - complainant knew 9/28/2001
maggi.com WIPO D2001-0916 10/12/2001
aspengrove.com WIPO TM - not valid; domain first; legitimate rights - complainant knew 10/17/2001
intelilink.com NAF FA0109000100124 11/5/2001
thefetishfactory.com NAF FA0108000099610 11/8/2001
torres.com WIPO D2001-1200 12/19/2001
pizzashoppe.com WIPO D2001-1353 1/11/2002
supremo.com WIPO D2001-1357 2/15/2002
prom.com WIPO D2001-1154 3/4/2002
arche.com NAF plan "B" 3/13/2002
goodtidings.com NAF FA0203000105749 4/9/2002
curbking.com NAF legitimate rights - complainant knew; misrepresentation 5/10/2002
paparazzo.com WIPO D2002-0189 5/29/2002
innovativemerchantsolutions.biz and others NAF prior court case; harassment 6/4/2002
ntmailserver.com WIPO D2002-0277 6/24/2002
scubadiving.biz WIPO DBIZ2002-00153 6/28/2002
imode.biz WIPO DBIZ2002-00141 6/30/2002
hemp.biz NAF (STOP) misrepresentation 7/9/2002
ikb.com WIPO legitimate rights - complainant knew 7/23/2002
411.biz WIPO TM - not valid; deception 8/2/2002
shoes.biz WIPO DBIZ2002-00245 8/12/2002
sfm.com WIPO D2002-0535 9/13/2002
picoliter.com NAF FA0208000122205 10/23/2002
windsor.com WIPO D2002-0839 11/14/2002
dvla.com WIPO legitimate rights - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence; plan "B" 11/27/2002
newzealand.com WIPO D2002-0754 11/27/2002
centrelecorbusier.com and others WIPO legitimate rights - complainant knew 4/7/2003
nishan.com WIPO D2003-0204 5/1/2003
futureworld.com WIPO bad faith - no evidence 7/18/2003
netdeposit.com WIPO D2003-0365 7/22/2003
usdocuments.com WIPO D2003-0583 9/17/2003
policeauction.com NAF TM - not valid; domain first 3/9/2004
carsales.com WIPO domain first; misrepresentation 4/8/2004
carbwatchers.com NAF domain first 5/28/2004
stmoritz.com WIPO D2004-0158 6/14/2004
mexico.com WIPO D2004-0242 7/19/2004
gtatravels.com WIPO D2004-0741 12/16/2004
kiwi.com WIPO D2004-0848 1/4/2005
mess.com WIPO D2004-0964 1/25/2005
mountainviewcountryclub.com NAF domain first; TM - not valid; misrepresentation 3/28/2005
multicast.com NAF domain first; legitimate rights - complainant knew; misrepresentation 4/28/2005
aljazeera.com WIPO domain first; delay; bad faith - no evidence 7/19/2005
itravelinsured.com NAF FA0508000545210 10/11/2005
primalquest.com WIPO D2005-1083 12/15/2005
aroma.com NAF domain first; legitimate rights - complainant knew 1/16/2006
penthouseboutique.com NAF misrepresentation 5/26/2006
downunder.travel WIPO TM - not valid; misrepresentation 6/6/2006
rohl.com WIPO legitimate rights - complainant knew 7/12/2006
dreamgirls.com WIPO domain first; delay 8/10/2006
trailblazer.com WIPO D2006-0875 8/25/2006
proto.com WIPO D2006-0905 10/10/2006
zounds.com NAF TM - not valid; legitimate rights - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence 11/24/2006
primeconnections.com NAF domain first; TM - not valid 12/18/2006
cbpublishing.com NAF deception; misrepresentation; TM - not valid 4/18/2007
superblock.com NAF misrepresentation; TM - not valid; domain first; legitimate rights - complainant knew 9/11/2007
fcc.com WIPO legitimate interest - complainant knew; misrepresentation 10/7/2007
mycpa.com WIPO D2007-1171 10/12/2007
onephone.com WIPO D2007-1576 12/22/2007
rebelde.com WIPO D2007-1525 12/27/2007
liquidnutrition.com WIPO D2007-1598 1/28/2008
ironarc.com WIPO D2007-1611 1/29/2008
enki.com NAF domain first 3/28/2008
modularsdirect.com and other NAF domain first 4/8/2008
decal.com WIPO domain first; bad faith - no evidence 6/11/2008
altru.net NAF misrepresentation 7/15/2008
sfm.com NAF FA0805001183176 7/25/2008
collectivemedia.com WIPO domain first 7/31/2008
hero.com WIPO D2008-0779 8/13/2008
porta-jon.com WIPO D2008-1043 8/22/2008
onemodels.com WIPO D2008-1173 10/24/2008
my-life.com WIPO D2008-1313 10/27/2008
pokerhost.net WIPO D2008-1518 12/1/2008
made-from-india.com/indiamart.com NAF TM - not valid; legitimate rights - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence 2/18/2009
mathieson.com WIPO D2009-0087 3/23/2009
versacapital.com NAF FA0903001250988 4/14/2009
mirabella.com WIPO D2009-0673 7/29/2009
長江.com (YangtzeRiver).com WIPO D2009-0540 7/29/2009
urbanlogic.com WIPO D2009-0862 8/17/2009
hotcam.com NAF FA0907001273417 8/24/2009
lincs.com NAF FA0907001273907 9/3/2009
rain.com NAF FA0908001279419 9/29/2009
bwired.com WIPO domain first 10/16/2009
bsa.com NAF TM - not valid; domain first; bad faith - no evidence 11/19/2009
ardyssbodymagicshop.com NAF misrepresentation 1/14/2010
realtyalliance.com NAF FA0912001296997 2/12/2010
adventurerv.com NAF bad faith - no evidence 5/3/2010














































































































































































































































































































Domain Venue Case Number/Reason Decision Date
kokeshi.com WIPO D2010-0606 6/10/2010
genomatix.com WIPO bad faith - no evidence 7/8/2010
tinyprint.com NAF domain first 10/8/2010
virtualexpo.com WIPO domain first 10/8/2010
energyfix.com NAF domain first; legitimate interest - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence; delay 10/22/2010
xpand.com WIPO D2010-1519 11/16/2010
webpass.com WIPO D2010-1796 12/2/2010
3dcafe.com NAF TM - not valid 12/20/2010
cinemacity.com WIPO domain first 2/2/2011
pokersrategy.com and others WIPO D2011-0005 3/8/2011
shoeby.com WIPO misrepresentation; legitimate rights - complainant knew 3/20/2011
streetwave.com CAC 100220 4/8/2011
viking.org NAF FA1104001383534 5/31/2011
futuris.com WIPO D2011-0596 6/20/2011
unive.com WIPO D2011-0636 6/30/2011
iuno.com WIPO bad faith - no evidence; domain first 7/4/2011
shoppingdopovo.com WIPO D2011-0734 7/18/2011
maisonduemonde.com WIPO D2011-0956 7/28/2011
fedtax.com NAF legitimate interest - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence; delay 9/29/2011
w59.com NAF FA1110001413550 11/30/2011
ecase.com NAF domain first; legitimate rights - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence 12/1/2011
planate.com WIPO D2011-1535 12/6/2011
hooman.com NAF legitimate rights - complainant knew; domain first 4/16/2012
dextra.com WIPO plan "B"; misrepresentation; bad faith - no evidence 4/19/2012
edgepos.com WIPO domain first; bad faith - no evidence 4/21/2012
elk.com WIPO domain first; legitimate interest - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence; plan "B" 5/14/2012
saveme.com WIPO D2012-0498 5/31/2012
etatil.com WIPO domain first; legitimate interest - complainant knew 6/23/2012
mamamayi.com NAF FA1205001445335 7/2/2012
sha.com WIPO D2012-0997 7/19/2012
mindo.com WIPO D2012-1273 7/26/2012
wallstreet.com WIPO D2012-1193 9/12/2012
womantowomanhealthcenter.com WIPO D2012-1555 9/22/2012
metatrader.com WIPO D2012-1475 10/5/2012
takeout.com WIPO D2012-1668 10/18/2012
gtms.com NAF FA1210001465897 11/19/2012
petexpress.com NAF FA1211001470056 1/2/2013
coldfront.com NAF domain first 1/17/2013
eyemagine.com WIPO domain first; legitimate interest - complainant knew; plan "B" 2/14/2013
swash.com WIPO D2012-2179 2/22/2013
joopa.com NAF FA1302001483682 3/27/2013
opulence.com NAF domain first 4/2/2013
avayo.net NAF legitimate rights - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence; UDRP history 4/19/2013
hivinnocencegroupproject.com and other NAF legitimate rights - complainant knew; misrepresentation 5/6/2013
ronpaul.org WIPO harassment 5/11/2013
ishades.com WIPO domain first; bad faith - no evidence; misrepresentation 5/14/2013
digilove.com WIPO domain first; legitimate rights - complainant knew; bad faith - no evidence; Plan "B"; misrepresentation 6/4/2013
klipz.com NAF domain first; bad faith - no evidence 7/17/2013

The ‘Reasons’ column is an attempt to identify and categorize the various circumstances cited by panels in support of a finding of RDNH.

Explanation of Reasons:


Bad Faith – No Evidence – the complaint provides no evidence of the respondent’s bad faith

Deception – deceptive behavior in complainant’s prior dealings with respondent

Delay - a long delay in bringing the complaint raises questions about whether complainant believes it has rights to the domain

Domain First – the registration of the domain predates trademark rights of the Complainant

Harassment - the primary motive of complainant appears to be to harass the respondent

Legitimate Interest – Complainant Knew – Complainant should have been aware that the respondent had a legitimate interest in the disputed domain

Misrepresentation – a misrepresentation to the panel, usually the omission of material information in violation of Complainant’s representation that the complaint is complete and accurate.

Plan “B” – the complainant is using the UDRP as an alternative acquisition strategy after commercial negotiations failed

Prior Court Case - Complaint brought to further burden respondent despite the matter already being the subject of a court case

TM – not valid – complainant did not have enforceable trademark rights

UDRP history – complainant has a history of filing unsuccessful UDRP complaints


Source: RDNH.COM




There IS a HUGE Penalty for Reverse Domain Name Hijacking!! More Severe than Dollars!

Morning Folks!!

There really is a penalty for Reverse Domain Name Hijacking and it is far more severe than anything monetary. I have been defending my domains from predators and would-be Domain Name Hijackers for over 14 years. When the Saveme.com case (Start at bottom of link page) came to me as a GIFT about 16 months ago I RELISHED my opportunity to change things. It was such a slam dunk that I was going to make this case an example for others and a warning of the SEVERE CONSEQUENCES that come with it. I may lose a domain, but a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER loses their entire reputation and it can't be repaired.

When I was a kid my parents and my teachers would scare me to be good as they would tell me if I was bad it would be on my "Permanent Record". Well when you commit a crime, it is on your permanent record. Misbehaving in school? Not so much.

So I have used the SaveMe.com case as well as others like Procter and Gamble to illustrate just how bad a decision trying to STEAL somebody else's domain really is. And so I did. I PROMISED to make Márcio Mello Chaves FAMOUS!! Promise kept baby!!

Go to Google or go to Bing and search for Márcio Mello Chaves or Marcio Mello Chaves.

THAT is how SEO REALLY works!!!

RELEVANCY!! Be relevant and you will have no problem being searched. Marcio Mello Chavez is relevant to Ricksblog.com and more importantly to Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. How does he EVER fix it?? It's a permanent record of FACT!

Search procter and gamble domains. You no longer get a list of domains they own.

So I believe the SOCIAL PENALTY far outweighs anything else. A $100k fine is nothing when you talk of a 7 figure domain and a multi-billion dollar company. A win could be viewed as a "Discount".  But when you have to deal with the SOCIAL FALLOUT, it is MUCH more SEVERE and I am proving it!

The Scarlett Letter of Domain Hijacking will follow those throughout their entire lifetimes and beyond. Here are MY POSTS about Reverse Domain Name Hijacking and those involved. The NEXT guy DESERVES what he gets because he has been warned and I am going to change their futures more than they can change their futures.

So this July 4th I feel like this year has been the turning point in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). And yes, I like to write out in full Reverse Domain Name Hijacking as many times as I can to associate a name with the deed! My only obligation to a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker is to make them FAMOUS! They try to destroy MY BUSINESS or YOUR BUSINESS?? Then they MUST live with the PERMANENT consequences. Did they show you mercy? Well they are warned and they OWN their decisions.

Did the biggest Company Shake up in 100 YEARS at Procter and Gamble have something to do with Reverse Domain Name Hijacking? Don't discount the possibility! Somebody made the decision to SOIL their companies stellar name. In government it may be overlooked or you get promoted. In business, you get you ASS kicked to the curb with all involved! And deservedly so!

I have 18 years and many millions of dollars invested in my online business as well as many of you readers. So if some IDIOT thinks he can just STEAL our hard work by hiring some hotshot and thinking $15k is all the skin they have in the game, then they have to live with the fallout and that fallout can be severe and  life changing. That's what BOTH the attorney and the client get from now on because attorney's know better at this point in time. So the job of the attorney is not be part of a hijacking and to AID and ABET. It is to educate their client or FIRE their client. Your CHOICE and just remember that YOUR NAME will be included in the fallout. It's not up to you and it is not in your control once you AID and ABET. And make NO MISTAKE, the panels today are not ignorant. The attorney is the mastermind of the hijacking as well as the driver of the car the way I see it. You have been hired as a contract hit man but the hit is not on a person, it is on property. Your client is in the back seat directing you and paying YOU to help him HIJACK a domain name. The MOMENT you go along with that, you are just as guilty because YOU KNOW what you are doing. It is premeditated. You are just as guilty aren't you my attorney??

Wrong minded? ok. But THAT is EXACTLY the way I see the roles and THAT is the passion I will write with every single time. Remember we are not talking about an honest difference of opinion where you need a ruing. We are talking when that ruling comes in that STATES that you have ABUSED the process. For that Mr. Attorney, YOU will be held accountable. Your choice? Tell your client the FACTS or FIRE your client. It may be the most important decision you ever make in life. And I get to write about YOU and mention NAMES whenever I feel like.

Molly Megee Hankins and Heitor Chavez are examples of what I am talking about as they represented Reverse Domain Name Hijackers and knew better! I will add more to the list as I look through the decisions to see which lawyers abused the process. 

I am going to stop this practice in it's tracks! If you are a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER or are found GUILTY of ABUSING the process, then You and your attorney will be known far and wide and throughout the world and it will follow you folks like a shadow on sunny days AND cloudy days and even in the dark!

Then you have the KING of all. Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL who represented Procter and Gamble. Have THEY been fired? Let me give them a second mention Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. I would assume these are top notch folks. HOW could they ALLOW their client to walk into this? I guess it would  take real balls to fire P&G. They might lose the account? Wonder if they were fired?

So if you are being unfairly threatened about your domain name, just point them here. It is FREE and EFFECTIVE because it is all based on FACT and PASSION! Give them a little window into how things may unfold because when YOU WIN and they get found GUILTY of REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING, I am going to write about them right here and make them famous too!

And what can you do? Circulate this post. Retweet it. Like it. Comment on Linkedin. Circulate it. THAT is a very small effort to help protect your livelihood and your assets that costs nothing and helps put these folks on notice. THAT is how to help STOP Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Rick Schwartz

 

 

And just for the sake of republishing for this post and July 4th. Here is the current list I have of RDNH cases. This list that the NEXT SCHMUCK gets to join and LIVE WITH!

So from now on we must ROAST these Reverse Domain Name Hijackers (RDNH). Ah you say but Rick what have you been doing if you are not already roasting them? Well there are some innovative ways we will begin to get the attention of these companies. But we will leave that for another day because this CONTENT is right here and not going away anytime soon.

Harsh? You bet!! These folks join Procter and Gamble and any others. But P&G BOUGHT the domain name later on.

Try to hijack a domain name and you will be shamed publicly because public opinion is the way to stop bad behavior when the laws out there are not adequate enough to do the job. Each of these companies will receive an increasingly HARSHER post from me because they are not ignorant of what they are doing. In almost every case they KNEW what they were doing and their INTENT was to STEAL using a governing body as their pawns!

The PUBLIC now OWNS the reputation of each of these companies and individuals as well as the attorney's that KNOWINGLY aid and abet because they KNOW BETTER. They are all now BRANDED in the most despicable way and so all the $$$ they spent to familiarize us with their products just got a mighty damaging blow.

Well there have been more findings of Reverse Domain Hijacking in the last 12 months that any preceding 12 month period. So the cat is out of the bag and they can no longer fool panels into being their unknowing accomplice.

So when I get threats, THIS IS WHAT THEY CAN LOOK FORWARD TO

I have 41 such cases so far of RDNH and this resource has 129. Each win will discourage the next would-be hijacker. A tip of the hat to all owners below that fought and a big congrats to the attorney that represented them! I will list any and all cases as I learn of them. In time we hope decisions like these will will make the next IDIOT think twice before they attempt to STEAL something they have no legal or moral rights to. We now OWN YOUR REPUTATION and we will circulate!

And a special tip of the hat to John Berryhill who is the leading RDNH attorney in the world. I am counting and will post how many wins he has recorded on behalf of his clients. I would guess about 1/3 of all decisions. So if you are up against Berryhill or Neu or Goldberger, or Keating or a few others, good luck! You'll need it. Save yourself a great loss and embarrassment and WITHDRAW your case and send the other party their expense money and then get down to this thing we call "Capitalism" and NEGOTIATE!!

Otherwise you get to be labeled what "I" want to label you as and you will be tagged with that DESERVED recognition each and every time a new client does a search to find the good, the bad and the ugly. Want to know which group "Fuckers" will end up in.

And with each conviction I will be a bigger PRICK than the post before UNTIL this crap stops and will begin the tedious job of making REVERSE DOMAIN HIJACKING a CRIMINAL offense as we move forward.

If you are on thin ice, and found out to be GUILTY, you and your company will be listed right here and in all future blog posts and interviews relating to this and I reserve my right to use your attempted theft at every chance I get. Let the PUBLIC decide who is the THIEF! Who is the party found GUILTY of REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING! Each case will be included in the book I am writing as well.

SaveMe.com The Grand daddy of RDNH. Here is my post on this very big win against Márcio Mello Chaves, aka Márcio Chaves aka Marcio Chaves.

The Complainant is G.W.H.C. - Serviços Online Ltda., E-Commerce Media Group Informação e Tecnologia Ltda. of Sao Paulo, Brazil, represented by Almeida Advogados, Brazil. Found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

But in even a bigger case, Swash.com Complainant Procter and Gamble Represented by Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. Procter and Gamble is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker.

Case #1 is our Friend Scott Day of Digimedia who won a $100k+ judgment againstGOFORIT ENTERTAINMENT, LLC who IS a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER.

Case #2 Rain.com Media Rain LLC engaged in Reverse Domain Hijacking

Case #3 CinemaCity.com The Complainant is Prime Pictures LLC of Dubai, United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), represented by Law offices of Vince Ravine, PC, United States of America (“USA”). Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #4 CollectiveMedia.com The Complainant is Collective Media, Inc., New York, United States of America, represented by Lowenstein Sandler PC, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #5 Elk.com The Complainant is ELK Accesories Pty Ltd. of Preston, Australia represented by Pointon Partners, Australia is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #6 ForSale.ca Globe Media International Corporation is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #7 Mess.com Kiwi Shoe Polish Company, The Complainant is Mess Enterprises, San Francisco, California, of United States of America, represented by Steve Clinton, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #8 Goldline.com The Complainant is Goldline International, Inc., represented by Spataro & Associates is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #9 K2R.com The complainant is a Swiss company, K2r Produkte AG of Haggenstrasse45, CH 9014 St. Gallen, Switzerland is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #10 CarSales.com The Complainant is carsales.com.au Limited of Burwood, Victoria, Australia represented by Corrs Chambers, Westgarth, Australia is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #11 Proto.com The Complainant is Proto Software, Inc., New York, New York, United States of America, represented by Byron Binkley, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #12 TrailBlazer.com The Complainant is Trailblazer Learning, Inc. dba Trailblazer, Caledonia, Michigan, United States of America, Self-represented by Brett W. Company COO, Caledonia, Michigan, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker.

Case #13 DreamGirls.com The Complainant is Dreamgirls, Inc., Tampa, Florida, United States of America, represented by Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP, Los Angeles, California, United States of America and have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker".

Case #14 Mexico.com The Complainant is Consejo de Promoción Turística de México, S.A. de C.V., Colonia Anzures, Mexico, represented by Bello, Guzmán, Morales Y Tsuru, S.C., Mexico is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #15 Windsor.com Complainant in this administrative proceeding is Windsor Fashions, Inc., a California corporation with a principal place of business in Los Angeles, California, United States of America. Complainant is represented in this proceeding by Abraham M. Rudy, Esq. and Julie Waldman, Esq., Weisman, Wolff, Bergman, Coleman, Grodin & Evall LLP, Beverly Hills, California, United States of America. They have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker".

Case #16 Mindo.com Complainants are Scandinavian Leadership AB and Mindo AB of Uppsala, Sweden, internally represented. They have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker".

Case # 17 and Sha.com he Complainant is Albir Hills Resort, S.A. of Alfaz del Pi Alicante, Spain, represented by PADIMA, Abogados y Agentes de Propiedad Industrial, S.L., Spain. They have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker".

Case # 18 etatil.com The Complainants are ÖZALTUN OTELCİLİK TURİZM VE TİCARET LTD. ŞTİ. of Istanbul, Turkey, Allstar Hotels LLC of New York, Unites States of America and Mr. Metin ALTUN of Istanbul, Turkey, represented by Istanbul Patent & Trademark Consultancy Ltd., Turkey. They have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker".

Case # 19 Takeout.com. Complainant is Tarheel Take-Out, LLC of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America (“U.S.”), represented internally. They have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker".

Case # 20 WallStreet.com  The Complainant is Wall-Street.com, LLC of Florida, United States of America (the “United States” or “US”), represented by Flint IP Law, United States. They have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker".

Case # 21 parvi.org found for the complainant in 2009 but in 2012 the courts rules that theCity of Paris, France was guilty of "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking" in a landmark case that resulted in a $125,000 judgement against the city.

Case #22 Gtms.com The Complainant is Sustainable Forestry Management Limited, a company incorporated under the laws of Bermuda, with its principal place of business in London, United Kingdom. The Complainant is represented by its general counsel, Mr. Eric Bettelheim. They have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker".

Case #23 PetExpress.com The Complaintant is Airpet Animal Transport, Inc. represented by Mark W. Good of Terra Law LLP, California, USA. They have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker"

Case #24 ColdFront.com Complainant is Personally Cool Inc. (“Complainant”), New York, USA. They have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker"

Case #25 Unive.com Complainant is Coöperatie Univé U.A. of Arnhem, Netherlands, represented by Novagraaf Nederland B.V., Netherlands. "Given the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding"

Case #26  eCase.com AINS, INC(“Complainant”), represented by Janice W. Housey of Symbus Law Group,  LLC, Virginia, USA. The panel concludes that the Complaint was brought in bad faith in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Case #27 TinyPrint.com Complainant is Tiny Prints, Inc(“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA "Complaint was brought in bad faith and that, accordingly, Complainant has attempted to engage in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking"

Case #28 Enki.com Complainant is Enki LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Eric A. Novikoff, of California, USA. "This is a frivolous proceeding which should never have been filed by Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant is guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking"

Case #29 SFM.com Complainant is State Fund Mutual Insurance Co. represented by Peter G. Nikolai, of Nikolai & Mersereau, P.A., Minnesota, USA The Panel finds "Complainant has engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking."

Case  #30 Swash.com Complainant Procter and Gamble Represented by Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. Procter and Gamble is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

"It is impossible to believe that the Complainant, who employs ultra-sophisticated marketing methods, was not aware that the disputed domain name, <swash.com>, had been registered and used by other entities for some years when the Complainant introduced its SWASH product line in 2009. 

The entire Panel finds it more extraordinary still that in its Complaint the Complainant represented the SWASH brand to be a worldwide brand of longstanding with multi-million dollar sales, stating that over the last 4 years alone the brand had gained sales of over USD 40,000,000. When this was challenged by the Respondent, the Complainant was forced to admit that the brand had only been on the market for 4 years, that sales had been restricted to the USA and that sales over those four years had totaled under USD 60,000. 

Had the Respondent failed to respond, there is a very real risk that the Panel, relying upon the 1993 International registration and the substantial sales volumes claimed for the brand, would have found in favor of the Complainant. This Complaint fell very far short of what the Panel was entitled to expect from a Complainant of this stature.

In all of the circumstances present here, the Panel finds that the Complainant has abused the process in an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking in contravention of the UDRP Rules at paragraph 15(e). The Panel majority also finds the Complainant has attempted reverse domain name hijacking because it must have known that the Respondent did not know of (nor had any reason to be aware of) any relevant trade mark rights in the SWASH name when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2004."

Case  #31 3dCafe.com Complainant is 3DCafe, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Danielle I. Mattessich of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. The panel finds "Complainant acted in bad faith. The Panel therefore makes a finding of reverse domain name hijacking."

Case  #32 xPand.com The Complainant is X6D Limited of Limassol, Cyprus, represented by Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, United States of America. "The Panel therefore accepts the Respondent’s allegation that the Complainant is using the UDRP as an alternative purchase strategy after the acquisition of the disputed domain name failed. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt of reverse domain name hijacking: The Complainant knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered in bad faith."

Case  #33 Webpass.com The Complainant is Webpass, Inc. of San Francisco, California, United States of America represented by Law Office of Richard J. Greenstone, United States of America.

D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking


Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines Reverse Domain Name Hijacking:

“Reverse Domain Name Hijacking means using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.”

The general conditions for a finding of bad faith on the part of a complainant are well stated in Smart Design LLC v. Carolyn Hughes, WIPO Case No. D2000-0993 (October 18, 2000):

“Clearly, the launching of an unjustifiable Complaint with malice aforethought qualifies, as would the pursuit of a Complaint after the Complainant knew it to be insupportable.”

These conditions are confirmed in Goldline International, Inc. v. Gold Line, WIPO Case No. D2000-1151 (January 4, 2001) and Sydney Opera House Trust v. Trilynx Pty. Limited, WIPO Case No. D2000-1224 (October 31, 2000) (where the condition is stated as “the respondent must show knowledge on the part of the complainant of the respondent’s right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and evidence of harassment or similar conduct by the complainant in the face of such knowledge”), which in turn cites Plan Express Inc. v. Plan Express, WIPO Case No. D2000-0565 (July 17, 2000).

The Complainant knew when it filed the Complaint that the registration of the disputed domain name preceded by several years any rights that the Complainant may have acquired in the mark WEB PASS. Indeed, the Complainant annexes a printout of the WhoIs registration to the Complaint, and that printout indicates that the domain name was created well before the Complainant’s first use in commerce of its mark. In this Panel’s view, this is sufficient to find reverse domain name hijacking. See NetDeposit, Inc. v. NetDeposit.com, WIPO Case No.D2003-0365 (July 22, 2003) (finding reverse domain name hijacking because “Respondent's domain name registration preceded the Complainant's creation of its trademark rights”).

The Panel finds that the Complainant has attempted Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Case  #34 BSA.com Complainant is Bin Shabib & Associates (BSA) LLP (“Complainant”), represented by Jimmy Haoula, United Arab Emirates.

The panel finds that Complainant has failed to present any evidence to support its claimed rights in the disputed domain name.  It only provided an application for trademark registration which does not establish any enforceable rights under the UDRP.  It did not offer any evidence to support a finding of common law rights in the disputed mark.  Also, the Panel finds that Complainant knew or should have known that it was unable to prove that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name or that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.  Based on the foregoing, the panel finds that reverse domain name hijacking has occurred.

See NetDepositVerkaik v. Crownonlinemedia.com, D2001-1502 (WIPO Mar. 19, 2002) (“To establish reverse domain name hijacking, Respondent must show knowledge on the part of the complainant of the Respondent’s right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name and evidence of harassment or similar conduct by the Complainant in the fact of such knowledge.”); see also Labrada Bodybuilding Nutrition, Inc. v. Glisson, FA 250232 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 28, 2004) (finding that complainant engaged in reverse domain name hijacking where it used “the Policy as a tool to simply wrest the disputed domain name in spite of its knowledge that the Complainant was not entitled to that name and hence had no colorable claim under the Policy”).

Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED. The Panel further finds that Complainant engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking."

Case #35 adjudicate.org.au The Complainant is Adjudicate Today Pty Limited of Mona Vale, New South Wales, Australia represented by Moray & Agnew, Australia. The domain, adjudicate.org.au. Futureworld Consultancy (Pty) Limited v. Online AdviceWIPO Case No. D2003-0297 states that a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking may be made if the Complainant “knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered or used in bad faith”. Given that the Complainant would have been aware that the Respondent had a more than negligible adjudication business in Australia at the time the Complaint was filed, the Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant knew or should have known that it could not prove that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that this is an instance of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Case #36 Joopa.com Complainant is Edward Smith (“Complainant”), represented by Kuscha Abhyanker of Raj Abhyanker P.C., California, USA.  “the Complainant filed its trademark application shortly after it was unable to acquire the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent on acceptable terms. "The panel finds that failing in this effort, the Complainant undertook to use the Policy to acquire the Disputed Domain Name.” “The panel finds that the Complaint has attempted reverse domain name hijacking in violation of the Rules.”

Case #37 PoliceAuction.com Complainant is Vortal Group, Inc(“Complainant”), represented by Roger N. Behle Jr., of Behle Law Corporation, 575 Anton Boulevard, Suite 710, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. "Moreover, the Panel finds that filing a UDRP proceeding - which on its face can be qualified as frivolous - without any basis to do so should be construed in the present case as harassing. Here, Complainant admitted it knew that the domain name was registered prior to its using the at-issue mark in commerce. When, as in the present case, Complainant is unable to show trademark rights through use or otherwise which predate registration of the at-issue domain name, then it becomes impossible for it to prevail. In the case before the Panel, there is no way that Complainant could have reasonably expected to prevail and its counsel should have known better." Vortal Group, Inc. is a convicted Reverse Domain Name Hijacker and "counsel should have known better"

Case #38 Opulence.com Complainant is Horizon Publishing, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Marc J. Kesten of Marc J. Kesten, P.L., Florida, USA.
Horizon Publishing, LLC of Fort Lauderdale, Florida is the latest to be labeled a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER by the governing body.

Case #39 Avayo.net Complainant is Avaya Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Joseph Englander of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Florida, USA. “The Respondent correctly notes that the Complainant has previously filed domain name cases, and lost in two of such cases when it brought proceedings against legitimate businesses such as the Respondent.  See Avaya Inc. v. Sudhir Sazena, FA 1229266 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 9, 2008); and Avaya Inc. v. Moayyad Hamad, FA 1456063 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2012). ” “Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complaint was submitted in an attempt to hijack Respondent’s domain name” Avaya Inc. is a convicted Reverse Domain Name Hijacker 

Case #40 hivinnocencegrouptruth.com and hivinnocenceprojecttruth.com. Office of Medical & Scientific Justice, Inc. represented by Matthew H. Swyers of The Trademark Company, LLC, Virginia, USA. was found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) in attempted theft of the domain names.

Case #41 Complainant is the Honorable Ron Paul of Lake Jackson, Texas, United States of America, represented by LeClairRyan, United States of America." Ron Paul has been found GUILTY of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. I certainly invite the congressman and/or the domain owner to comment here or even write a guest blog post. 

Case #42  The Complainant is Ryan P. Boggs of Los Angeles, California, United States of America, represented by Molly Megee Hankins, ESQ., United States of America. The three person panel found (pdf) that Boggs “engaged in duplicitous dealings with the Respondent in relation to potential purchase of the disputed domain name”. "Complaint makes express and implied assertions that are false. These false assertions might have misled the Panel had not the Respondent provided the evidence, readily available to the Complainant, that refutes these assertions. Furthermore, it is simply not fair to require the Respondent to provide evidence establishing that the Complainant’s case is without basis when the Complainant must have, or at least should have, known this fact. The egregiousness of these deficiencies of the Complaint is compounded by the fact that the Complainant was represented by counsel. "

 

My hope is this is the last RDNH case I will ever have to post. The reality is this post will be re-posted EVERY SINGLE TIME there is a case of RDNH. Every time and now maybe some value based companies will think twice before flirting with this tactic and come to the bargaining table un good faith instead of being labeled forever with bad faith. The net is written in INK!

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL! Stop trying to steal and start doing BUSINESS! Feel free to repost FAR and WIDE!

Rick Schwartz

 


 

 

 

The Unfortunate Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) of RonPaul.org

Morning Folks!!

You can tell by the comments that there is a lot of mixed emotion on this one. I have yet to sort it out myself because of the "Unique facts". But my job here is to simply publish the results and sometimes some commentary. This one I need to think about. I need to examine the facts closely but this is a decision by a 3 member panel and it is supported with their findings and as you will read below the domain was offered at "no charge, with no strings attached" by the owner.



"Complainant is the Honorable Ron Paul of Lake Jackson, Texas, United States of America, represented by
LeClairRyan, United States of America." Ron Paul has been found GUILTY of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. I certainly invite the congressman and/or the domain owner to comment here or even write a guest blog post.

"Respondent has requested, based on the evidence presented, that the Panel make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. In view of the unique facts of this case, in which the evidence demonstrates that Respondent offered to give the Domain Name ronpaul.org to Complainant for no charge, with no strings attached, the Panel is inclined to agree. Instead of accepting the Domain Name, Complainant brought this proceeding. A finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking seems to this Panel to be appropriate in the circumstances."

So from now on we must ROAST these Reverse Domain Name Hijackers (RDNH). Ah you say but Rick what have you been doing if you are not already roasting them? Well there are some innovative ways we will begin to get the attention of these companies. But we will leave that for another day because this CONTENT is right here and not going away anytime soon.

Harsh? You bet!! They join Procter and Gamble and any others. But P&G later BOUGHT the domain name later on.

Try to hijack a domain name and you will be shamed publicly because public opinion is the way to stop bad behavior when the laws out there are not adequate enough to do the job. Each of these companies will receive an increasingly HARSHER post from me because they are not ignorant of what they are doing. In almost every case they KNEW what they were doing and their INTENT was to STEAL using a governing body as their pawns!

The PUBLIC now OWNS the reputation of each of these companies and individuals as well as the attorney's that KNOWINGLY aid and abet because they KNOW BETTER. They are all now BRANDED in the most despicable way and so all the $$$ they spent to familiarize us with their products just got a mighty damaging blow.

Well there have been more findings of Reverse Domain Hijacking in the last 12 months that any preceding 12 month period. So the cat is out of the bag and they can no longer fool panels into being their unknowing accomplice.

So when I get threats, THIS IS WHAT THEY CAN LOOK FORWARD TO

I have 41 such cases so far of RDNH and this resource has 129. Each win will discourage the next would-be hijacker. A tip of the hat to all owners below that fought and a big congrats to the attorney that represented them! I will list any and all cases as I learn of them. In time we hope decisions like these will will make the next IDIOT think twice before they attempt to STEAL something they have no legal or moral rights to. We now OWN YOUR REPUTATION and we will circulate!

And a special tip of the hat to John Berryhill who is the leading RDNH attorney in the world. I am counting and will post how many wins he has recorded on behalf of his clients. I would guess about 1/3 of all decisions. So if you are up against Berryhill or Neu or Goldberger, or Keating or a few others, good luck! You'll need it. Save yourself a great loss and embarrassment and WITHDRAW your case and send the other party their expense money and then get down to this thing we call "Capitalism" and NEGOTIATE!!

Otherwise you get to be labeled what "I" want to label you as and you will be tagged with that DESERVED recognition each and every time a new client does a search to find the good, the bad and the ugly. Want to know which group "Fuckers" will end up in.

And with each conviction I will be a bigger PRICK than the post before UNTIL this crap stops and will begin the tedious job of making REVERSE DOMAIN HIJACKING a CRIMINAL offense as we move forward.

If you are on thin ice, and found out to be GUILTY, you and your company will be listed right here and in all future blog posts and interviews relating to this and I reserve my right to use your attempted theft at every chance I get. Let the PUBLIC decide who is the THIEF! Who is the party found GUILTY of REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING! Each case will be included in the book I am writing as well.

SaveMe.com The Grand daddy of RDNH. Here is my post on this very big win against Márcio Mello Chaves, aka Márcio Chaves aka Marcio Chaves.

The Complainant is G.W.H.C. - Serviços Online Ltda., E-Commerce Media Group Informação e Tecnologia Ltda. of Sao Paulo, Brazil, represented by Almeida Advogados, Brazil. Found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

But in even a bigger case, Swash.com Complainant Procter and Gamble Represented by Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. Procter and Gamble is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker.

Case #1 is our Friend Scott Day of Digimedia who won a $100k+ judgment againstGOFORIT ENTERTAINMENT, LLC who IS a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER.

Case #2 Rain.com Media Rain LLC engaged in Reverse Domain Hijacking

Case #3 CinemaCity.com The Complainant is Prime Pictures LLC of Dubai, United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), represented by Law offices of Vince Ravine, PC, United States of America (“USA”). Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #4 CollectiveMedia.com The Complainant is Collective Media, Inc., New York, United States of America, represented by Lowenstein Sandler PC, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #5 Elk.com The Complainant is ELK Accesories Pty Ltd. of Preston, Australia represented by Pointon Partners, Australia is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #6 ForSale.ca Globe Media International Corporation is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #7 Mess.com Kiwi Shoe Polish Company, The Complainant is Mess Enterprises, San Francisco, California, of United States of America, represented by Steve Clinton, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #8 Goldline.com The Complainant is Goldline International, Inc., represented by Spataro & Associates is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #9 K2R.com The complainant is a Swiss company, K2r Produkte AG of Haggenstrasse45, CH 9014 St. Gallen, Switzerland is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #10 CarSales.com The Complainant is carsales.com.au Limited of Burwood, Victoria, Australia represented by Corrs Chambers, Westgarth, Australia is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #11 Proto.com The Complainant is Proto Software, Inc., New York, New York, United States of America, represented by Byron Binkley, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #12 TrailBlazer.com The Complainant is Trailblazer Learning, Inc. dba Trailblazer, Caledonia, Michigan, United States of America, Self-represented by Brett W. Company COO, Caledonia, Michigan, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker.

Case #13 DreamGirls.com The Complainant is Dreamgirls, Inc., Tampa, Florida, United States of America, represented by Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP, Los Angeles, California, United States of America and have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker".

Case #14 Mexico.com The Complainant is Consejo de Promoción Turística de México, S.A. de C.V., Colonia Anzures, Mexico, represented by Bello, Guzmán, Morales Y Tsuru, S.C., Mexico is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

Case #15 Windsor.com Complainant in this administrative proceeding is Windsor Fashions, Inc., a California corporation with a principal place of business in Los Angeles, California, United States of America. Complainant is represented in this proceeding by Abraham M. Rudy, Esq. and Julie Waldman, Esq., Weisman, Wolff, Bergman, Coleman, Grodin & Evall LLP, Beverly Hills, California, United States of America. They have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker".

Case #16 Mindo.com Complainants are Scandinavian Leadership AB and Mindo AB of Uppsala, Sweden, internally represented. They have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker".

Case # 17 and Sha.com he Complainant is Albir Hills Resort, S.A. of Alfaz del Pi Alicante, Spain, represented by PADIMA, Abogados y Agentes de Propiedad Industrial, S.L., Spain. They have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker".

Case # 18 etatil.com The Complainants are ÖZALTUN OTELCİLİK TURİZM VE TİCARET LTD. ŞTİ. of Istanbul, Turkey, Allstar Hotels LLC of New York, Unites States of America and Mr. Metin ALTUN of Istanbul, Turkey, represented by Istanbul Patent & Trademark Consultancy Ltd., Turkey. They have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker".

Case # 19 Takeout.com. Complainant is Tarheel Take-Out, LLC of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America (“U.S.”), represented internally. They have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker".

Case # 20 WallStreet.com  The Complainant is Wall-Street.com, LLC of Florida, United States of America (the “United States” or “US”), represented by Flint IP Law, United States. They have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker".

Case # 21 parvi.org found for the complainant in 2009 but in 2012 the courts rules that theCity of Paris, France was guilty of "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking" in a landmark case that resulted in a $125,000 judgement against the city.

Case #22 Gtms.com The Complainant is Sustainable Forestry Management Limited, a company incorporated under the laws of Bermuda, with its principal place of business in London, United Kingdom. The Complainant is represented by its general counsel, Mr. Eric Bettelheim. They have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker".

Case #23 PetExpress.com The Complaintant is Airpet Animal Transport, Inc. represented by Mark W. Good of Terra Law LLP, California, USA. They have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker"

Case #24 ColdFront.com Complainant is Personally Cool Inc. (“Complainant”), New York, USA. They have been labeled a "Reverse Domain Name Hijacker"

Case #25 Unive.com Complainant is Coöperatie Univé U.A. of Arnhem, Netherlands, represented by Novagraaf Nederland B.V., Netherlands. "Given the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding"

Case #26  eCase.com AINS, INC(“Complainant”), represented by Janice W. Housey of Symbus Law Group,  LLC, Virginia, USA. The panel concludes that the Complaint was brought in bad faith in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Case #27 TinyPrint.com Complainant is Tiny Prints, Inc(“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA "Complaint was brought in bad faith and that, accordingly, Complainant has attempted to engage in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking"

Case #28 Enki.com Complainant is Enki LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Eric A. Novikoff, of California, USA. "This is a frivolous proceeding which should never have been filed by Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant is guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking"

Case #29 SFM.com Complainant is State Fund Mutual Insurance Co. represented by Peter G. Nikolai, of Nikolai & Mersereau, P.A., Minnesota, USA The Panel finds "Complainant has engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking."

Case  #30 Swash.com Complainant Procter and Gamble Represented by Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. Procter and Gamble is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker

"It is impossible to believe that the Complainant, who employs ultra-sophisticated marketing methods, was not aware that the disputed domain name, <swash.com>, had been registered and used by other entities for some years when the Complainant introduced its SWASH product line in 2009. 

The entire Panel finds it more extraordinary still that in its Complaint the Complainant represented the SWASH brand to be a worldwide brand of longstanding with multi-million dollar sales, stating that over the last 4 years alone the brand had gained sales of over USD 40,000,000. When this was challenged by the Respondent, the Complainant was forced to admit that the brand had only been on the market for 4 years, that sales had been restricted to the USA and that sales over those four years had totaled under USD 60,000. 

Had the Respondent failed to respond, there is a very real risk that the Panel, relying upon the 1993 International registration and the substantial sales volumes claimed for the brand, would have found in favor of the Complainant. This Complaint fell very far short of what the Panel was entitled to expect from a Complainant of this stature.

In all of the circumstances present here, the Panel finds that the Complainant has abused the process in an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking in contravention of the UDRP Rules at paragraph 15(e). The Panel majority also finds the Complainant has attempted reverse domain name hijacking because it must have known that the Respondent did not know of (nor had any reason to be aware of) any relevant trade mark rights in the SWASH name when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2004."

Case  #31 3dCafe.com Complainant is 3DCafe, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Danielle I. Mattessich of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. The panel finds "Complainant acted in bad faith. The Panel therefore makes a finding of reverse domain name hijacking."

Case  #32 xPand.com The Complainant is X6D Limited of Limassol, Cyprus, represented by Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, United States of America. "The Panel therefore accepts the Respondent’s allegation that the Complainant is using the UDRP as an alternative purchase strategy after the acquisition of the disputed domain name failed. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt of reverse domain name hijacking: The Complainant knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered in bad faith."

Case  #33 Webpass.com The Complainant is Webpass, Inc. of San Francisco, California, United States of America represented by Law Office of Richard J. Greenstone, United States of America.

D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking


Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines Reverse Domain Name Hijacking:

“Reverse Domain Name Hijacking means using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.”

The general conditions for a finding of bad faith on the part of a complainant are well stated in Smart Design LLC v. Carolyn Hughes, WIPO Case No. D2000-0993 (October 18, 2000):

“Clearly, the launching of an unjustifiable Complaint with malice aforethought qualifies, as would the pursuit of a Complaint after the Complainant knew it to be insupportable.”

These conditions are confirmed in Goldline International, Inc. v. Gold Line, WIPO Case No. D2000-1151 (January 4, 2001) and Sydney Opera House Trust v. Trilynx Pty. Limited, WIPO Case No. D2000-1224 (October 31, 2000) (where the condition is stated as “the respondent must show knowledge on the part of the complainant of the respondent’s right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and evidence of harassment or similar conduct by the complainant in the face of such knowledge”), which in turn cites Plan Express Inc. v. Plan Express, WIPO Case No. D2000-0565 (July 17, 2000).

The Complainant knew when it filed the Complaint that the registration of the disputed domain name preceded by several years any rights that the Complainant may have acquired in the mark WEB PASS. Indeed, the Complainant annexes a printout of the WhoIs registration to the Complaint, and that printout indicates that the domain name was created well before the Complainant’s first use in commerce of its mark. In this Panel’s view, this is sufficient to find reverse domain name hijacking. See NetDeposit, Inc. v. NetDeposit.com, WIPO Case No.D2003-0365 (July 22, 2003) (finding reverse domain name hijacking because “Respondent's domain name registration preceded the Complainant's creation of its trademark rights”).

The Panel finds that the Complainant has attempted Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Case  #34 BSA.com Complainant is Bin Shabib & Associates (BSA) LLP (“Complainant”), represented by Jimmy Haoula, United Arab Emirates.

The panel finds that Complainant has failed to present any evidence to support its claimed rights in the disputed domain name.  It only provided an application for trademark registration which does not establish any enforceable rights under the UDRP.  It did not offer any evidence to support a finding of common law rights in the disputed mark.  Also, the Panel finds that Complainant knew or should have known that it was unable to prove that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name or that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.  Based on the foregoing, the panel finds that reverse domain name hijacking has occurred.

See NetDepositVerkaik v. Crownonlinemedia.com, D2001-1502 (WIPO Mar. 19, 2002) (“To establish reverse domain name hijacking, Respondent must show knowledge on the part of the complainant of the Respondent’s right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name and evidence of harassment or similar conduct by the Complainant in the fact of such knowledge.”); see also Labrada Bodybuilding Nutrition, Inc. v. Glisson, FA 250232 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 28, 2004) (finding that complainant engaged in reverse domain name hijacking where it used “the Policy as a tool to simply wrest the disputed domain name in spite of its knowledge that the Complainant was not entitled to that name and hence had no colorable claim under the Policy”).

Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED. The Panel further finds that Complainant engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking."

Case #35 adjudicate.org.au The Complainant is Adjudicate Today Pty Limited of Mona Vale, New South Wales, Australia represented by Moray & Agnew, Australia. The domain, adjudicate.org.au. Futureworld Consultancy (Pty) Limited v. Online AdviceWIPO Case No. D2003-0297 states that a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking may be made if the Complainant “knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered or used in bad faith”. Given that the Complainant would have been aware that the Respondent had a more than negligible adjudication business in Australia at the time the Complaint was filed, the Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant knew or should have known that it could not prove that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that this is an instance of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Case #36 Joopa.com Complainant is Edward Smith (“Complainant”), represented by Kuscha Abhyanker of Raj Abhyanker P.C., California, USA.  “the Complainant filed its trademark application shortly after it was unable to acquire the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent on acceptable terms. "The panel finds that failing in this effort, the Complainant undertook to use the Policy to acquire the Disputed Domain Name.” “The panel finds that the Complaint has attempted reverse domain name hijacking in violation of the Rules.”

Case #37 PoliceAuction.com Complainant is Vortal Group, Inc(“Complainant”), represented by Roger N. Behle Jr., of Behle Law Corporation, 575 Anton Boulevard, Suite 710, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. "Moreover, the Panel finds that filing a UDRP proceeding - which on its face can be qualified as frivolous - without any basis to do so should be construed in the present case as harassing. Here, Complainant admitted it knew that the domain name was registered prior to its using the at-issue mark in commerce. When, as in the present case, Complainant is unable to show trademark rights through use or otherwise which predate registration of the at-issue domain name, then it becomes impossible for it to prevail. In the case before the Panel, there is no way that Complainant could have reasonably expected to prevail and its counsel should have known better." Vortal Group, Inc. is a convicted Reverse Domain Name Hijacker and "counsel should have known better"

Case #38 Opulence.com Complainant is Horizon Publishing, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Marc J. Kesten of Marc J. Kesten, P.L., Florida, USA.
Horizon Publishing, LLC of Fort Lauderdale, Florida is the latest to be labeled a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER by the governing body.

Case #39 Avayo.net Complainant is Avaya Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Joseph Englander of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Florida, USA. “The Respondent correctly notes that the Complainant has previously filed domain name cases, and lost in two of such cases when it brought proceedings against legitimate businesses such as the Respondent.  See Avaya Inc. v. Sudhir Sazena, FA 1229266 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 9, 2008); and Avaya Inc. v. Moayyad Hamad, FA 1456063 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2012). ” “Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complaint was submitted in an attempt to hijack Respondent’s domain name” Avaya Inc. is a convicted Reverse Domain Name Hijacker 

Case #40 hivinnocencegrouptruth.com and hivinnocenceprojecttruth.com. Office of Medical & Scientific Justice, Inc. represented by Matthew H. Swyers of The Trademark Company, LLC, Virginia, USA. was found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) in attempted theft of the domain names.

Case #41 Complainant is the Honorable Ron Paul of Lake Jackson, Texas, United States of America, represented by LeClairRyan, United States of America." Ron Paul has been found GUILTY of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. I certainly invite the congressman and/or the domain owner to comment here or even write a guest blog post. 

My hope is this is the last RDNH case I will ever have to post. The reality is this post will be re-posted EVERY SINGLE TIME there is a case of RDNH. Every time and now maybe some value based companies will think twice before flirting with this tactic and come to the bargaining table un good faith instead of being labeled forever with bad faith. The net is written in INK!

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL! Stop trying to steal and start doing BUSINESS! Feel free to repost FAR and WIDE!

Rick Schwartz




 

Office of Medical & Scientific Justice, Inc. GUILTY, Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH)

Morning Folks!!


As reported by TheDomains.com last Friday......


Office of Medical & Scientific Justice, Inc. represented by Matthew H. Swyers of The Trademark Company, LLC, Virginia, USA. was just found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) in attempted theft of the domain names hivinnocencegrouptruth.com and hivinnocenceprojecttruth.com by a one member National Arbitration Forum UDRP decision.


So Office of Medical & Scientific Justice, Inc. joins the other GUILTY PARTIES below. Matthew H. Swyers of The Trademark Company, LLC, Virginia, USA should have known better. So as time goes on BOTH the company and the attorney are tagged in this. I BELIEVE that by virtue of these decisions they are CO-CONSPIRATORS. They BOTH engaged in activity that was deemed as hijacking.


So from now on we must ROAST these Reverse Domain Name Hijackers (RDNH). Ah you say but Rick what have you been doing if you are not already roasting them? Well there are some innovative ways we will begin to get the attention of these companies. But we will leave that for another day because this CONTENT is right here and not going away anytime soon.


Harsh? You bet!! They join Procter and Gamble and any others. But P&G later BOUGHT the domain name later on.


Try to hijack a domain name and you will be shamed publicly because public opinion is the way to stop bad behavior when the laws out there are not adequate enough to do the job. Each of these companies will receive an increasingly HARSHER post from me because they are not ignorant of what they are doing. In almost every case they KNEW what they were doing and their INTENT was to STEAL using a governing body as their pawns!


Well there have been more findings of Reverse Domain Hijacking in the last 12 months that any preceding 12 month period. So the cat is out of the bag and they can no longer fool panels into being their unknowing accomplice.


So when I get threats, THIS IS WHAT THEY CAN LOOK FORWARD TO


I have 39 such cases so far of RDNH and this resource has 129. Each win will discourage the next would-be hijacker. A tip of the hat to all owners below that fought and a big congrats to the attorney that represented them! I will list any and all cases as I learn of them. In time we hope decisions like these will will make the next IDIOT think twice before they attempt to STEAL something they have no legal or moral rights to. We now OWN YOUR REPUTATION and we will circulate!


And a special tip of the hat to John Berryhill who is the leading RDNH attorney in the world. I am counting and will post how many wins he has recorded on behalf of his clients. I would guess about 1/3 of all decisions. So if you are up against Berryhill or Neu or Goldberger, or Keating or a few others, good luck! You'll need it. Save yourself a great loss and embarrassment and WITHDRAW your case and send the other party their expense money and then get down to this thing we call 'Capitalism' and NEGOTIATE!!


Otherwise you get to be labeled what 'I' want to label you as and you will be tagged with that DESERVED recognition each and every time a new client does a search to find the good, the bad and the ugly. Want to know which group 'Fuckers' will end up in.


The PUBLIC now OWNS the reputation of each of these companies. They are now BRANDED in the most despicable way and so all the $$$ they spent to familiarize us with their products just got a mighty damaging blow.


And with each conviction I will be a bigger PRICK than the post before UNTIL this crap stops and will begin the tedious job of making REVERSE DOMAIN HIJACKING a CRIMINAL offense as we move forward.


If you are on thin ice, and found out to be GUILTY, you and your company will be listed right here and in all future blog posts and interviews relating to this and I reserve my right to use your attempted theft at every chance I get. Let the PUBLIC decide who is the THIEF! Who is the party found GUILTY of REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING! Each case will be included in the book I am writing as well.


SaveMe.com The Grand daddy of RDNH. Here is my post on this very big win against Márcio Mello Chaves, aka Márcio Chaves aka Marcio Chaves.


The Complainant is G.W.H.C. - Serviços Online Ltda., E-Commerce Media Group Informação e Tecnologia Ltda. of Sao Paulo, Brazil, represented by Almeida Advogados, Brazil. Found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking


But in even a bigger case, Swash.com Complainant Procter and Gamble Represented by Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. Procter and Gamble is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker.


Case #1 is our Friend Scott Day of Digimedia who won a $100k+ judgment againstGOFORIT ENTERTAINMENT, LLC who IS a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER.


Case #2 Rain.com Media Rain LLC engaged in Reverse Domain Hijacking


Case #3 CinemaCity.com The Complainant is Prime Pictures LLC of Dubai, United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), represented by Law offices of Vince Ravine, PC, United States of America (“USA”). Reverse Domain Name Hijacker


Case #4 CollectiveMedia.com The Complainant is Collective Media, Inc., New York, United States of America, represented by Lowenstein Sandler PC, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker


Case #5 Elk.com The Complainant is ELK Accesories Pty Ltd. of Preston, Australia represented by Pointon Partners, Australia is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker


Case #6 ForSale.ca Globe Media International Corporation is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker


Case #7 Mess.com Kiwi Shoe Polish Company, The Complainant is Mess Enterprises, San Francisco, California, of United States of America, represented by Steve Clinton, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker


Case #8 Goldline.com The Complainant is Goldline International, Inc., represented by Spataro & Associates is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker


Case #9 K2R.com The complainant is a Swiss company, K2r Produkte AG of Haggenstrasse45, CH 9014 St. Gallen, Switzerland is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker


Case #10 CarSales.com The Complainant is carsales.com.au Limited of Burwood, Victoria, Australia represented by Corrs Chambers, Westgarth, Australia is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker


Case #11 Proto.com The Complainant is Proto Software, Inc., New York, New York, United States of America, represented by Byron Binkley, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker


Case #12 TrailBlazer.com The Complainant is Trailblazer Learning, Inc. dba Trailblazer, Caledonia, Michigan, United States of America, Self-represented by Brett W. Company COO, Caledonia, Michigan, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker.


Case #13 DreamGirls.com The Complainant is Dreamgirls, Inc., Tampa, Florida, United States of America, represented by Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP, Los Angeles, California, United States of America and have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.


Case #14 Mexico.com The Complainant is Consejo de Promoción Turística de México, S.A. de C.V., Colonia Anzures, Mexico, represented by Bello, Guzmán, Morales Y Tsuru, S.C., Mexico is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker


Case #15 Windsor.com Complainant in this administrative proceeding is Windsor Fashions, Inc., a California corporation with a principal place of business in Los Angeles, California, United States of America. Complainant is represented in this proceeding by Abraham M. Rudy, Esq. and Julie Waldman, Esq., Weisman, Wolff, Bergman, Coleman, Grodin & Evall LLP, Beverly Hills, California, United States of America. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.


Case #16 Mindo.com Complainants are Scandinavian Leadership AB and Mindo AB of Uppsala, Sweden, internally represented. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.


Case # 17 and Sha.com he Complainant is Albir Hills Resort, S.A. of Alfaz del Pi Alicante, Spain, represented by PADIMA, Abogados y Agentes de Propiedad Industrial, S.L., Spain. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.


Case # 18 etatil.com The Complainants are ÖZALTUN OTELCİLİK TURİZM VE TİCARET LTD. ŞTİ. of Istanbul, Turkey, Allstar Hotels LLC of New York, Unites States of America and Mr. Metin ALTUN of Istanbul, Turkey, represented by Istanbul Patent & Trademark Consultancy Ltd., Turkey. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.


Case # 19 Takeout.com. Complainant is Tarheel Take-Out, LLC of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America (“U.S.”), represented internally. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.


Case # 20 WallStreet.com The Complainant is Wall-Street.com, LLC of Florida, United States of America (the “United States” or “US”), represented by Flint IP Law, United States. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.


Case # 21 parvi.org found for the complainant in 2009 but in 2012 the courts rules that theCity of Paris, France was guilty of 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacking' in a landmark case that resulted in a $125,000 judgement against the city.


Case #22 Gtms.com The Complainant is Sustainable Forestry Management Limited, a company incorporated under the laws of Bermuda, with its principal place of business in London, United Kingdom. The Complainant is represented by its general counsel, Mr. Eric Bettelheim. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.


Case #23 PetExpress.com The Complaintant is Airpet Animal Transport, Inc. represented by Mark W. Good of Terra Law LLP, California, USA. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'


Case #24 ColdFront.com Complainant is Personally Cool Inc. (“Complainant”), New York, USA. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'


Case #25 Unive.com Complainant is Coöperatie Univé U.A. of Arnhem, Netherlands, represented by Novagraaf Nederland B.V., Netherlands. 'Given the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding'


Case #26 eCase.com AINS, INC. (“Complainant”), represented by Janice W. Housey of Symbus Law Group, LLC, Virginia, USA. The panel concludes that the Complaint was brought in bad faith in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.


Case #27 TinyPrint.com Complainant is Tiny Prints, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA 'Complaint was brought in bad faith and that, accordingly, Complainant has attempted to engage in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking'


Case #28 Enki.com Complainant is Enki LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Eric A. Novikoff, of California, USA. 'This is a frivolous proceeding which should never have been filed by Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant is guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking'


Case #29 SFM.com Complainant is State Fund Mutual Insurance Co. represented by Peter G. Nikolai, of Nikolai & Mersereau, P.A., Minnesota, USA The Panel finds 'Complainant has engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.'


Case #30 Swash.com Complainant Procter and Gamble Represented by Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. Procter and Gamble is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker


'It is impossible to believe that the Complainant, who employs ultra-sophisticated marketing methods, was not aware that the disputed domain name, <swash.com>, had been registered and used by other entities for some years when the Complainant introduced its SWASH product line in 2009.


The entire Panel finds it more extraordinary still that in its Complaint the Complainant represented the SWASH brand to be a worldwide brand of longstanding with multi-million dollar sales, stating that over the last 4 years alone the brand had gained sales of over USD 40,000,000. When this was challenged by the Respondent, the Complainant was forced to admit that the brand had only been on the market for 4 years, that sales had been restricted to the USA and that sales over those four years had totaled under USD 60,000.
Had the Respondent failed to respond, there is a very real risk that the Panel, relying upon the 1993 International registration and the substantial sales volumes claimed for the brand, would have found in favor of the Complainant. This Complaint fell very far short of what the Panel was entitled to expect from a Complainant of this stature.


In all of the circumstances present here, the Panel finds that the Complainant has abused the process in an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking in contravention of the UDRP Rules at paragraph 15(e). The Panel majority also finds the Complainant has attempted reverse domain name hijacking because it must have known that the Respondent did not know of (nor had any reason to be aware of) any relevant trade mark rights in the SWASH name when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2004.'


Case #31 3dCafe.com Complainant is 3DCafe, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Danielle I. Mattessich of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. The panel finds 'Complainant acted in bad faith. The Panel therefore makes a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.'


Case #32 xPand.com The Complainant is X6D Limited of Limassol, Cyprus, represented by Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, United States of America. 'The Panel therefore accepts the Respondent’s allegation that the Complainant is using the UDRP as an alternative purchase strategy after the acquisition of the disputed domain name failed. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt of reverse domain name hijacking: The Complainant knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered in bad faith.'


Case #33 Webpass.com The Complainant is Webpass, Inc. of San Francisco, California, United States of America represented by Law Office of Richard J. Greenstone, United States of America.


D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking


Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines Reverse Domain Name Hijacking:


“Reverse Domain Name Hijacking means using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.”


The general conditions for a finding of bad faith on the part of a complainant are well stated in Smart Design LLC v. Carolyn Hughes, WIPO Case No. D2000-0993 (October 18, 2000):


“Clearly, the launching of an unjustifiable Complaint with malice aforethought qualifies, as would the pursuit of a Complaint after the Complainant knew it to be insupportable.”


These conditions are confirmed in Goldline International, Inc. v. Gold Line, WIPO Case No. D2000-1151 (January 4, 2001) and Sydney Opera House Trust v. Trilynx Pty. Limited, WIPO Case No. D2000-1224 (October 31, 2000) (where the condition is stated as “the respondent must show knowledge on the part of the complainant of the respondent’s right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and evidence of harassment or similar conduct by the complainant in the face of such knowledge”), which in turn cites Plan Express Inc. v. Plan Express, WIPO Case No. D2000-0565 (July 17, 2000).


The Complainant knew when it filed the Complaint that the registration of the disputed domain name preceded by several years any rights that the Complainant may have acquired in the mark WEB PASS. Indeed, the Complainant annexes a printout of the WhoIs registration to the Complaint, and that printout indicates that the domain name was created well before the Complainant’s first use in commerce of its mark. In this Panel’s view, this is sufficient to find reverse domain name hijacking. See NetDeposit, Inc. v. NetDeposit.com, WIPO Case No.D2003-0365 (July 22, 2003) (finding reverse domain name hijacking because “Respondent's domain name registration preceded the Complainant's creation of its trademark rights”).


The Panel finds that the Complainant has attempted Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.


Case #34 BSA.com Complainant is Bin Shabib & Associates (BSA) LLP (“Complainant”), represented by Jimmy Haoula, United Arab Emirates.


The panel finds that Complainant has failed to present any evidence to support its claimed rights in the disputed domain name. It only provided an application for trademark registration which does not establish any enforceable rights under the UDRP. It did not offer any evidence to support a finding of common law rights in the disputed mark. Also, the Panel finds that Complainant knew or should have known that it was unable to prove that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name or that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Based on the foregoing, the panel finds that reverse domain name hijacking has occurred.


See NetDepositVerkaik v. Crownonlinemedia.com, D2001-1502 (WIPO Mar. 19, 2002) (“To establish reverse domain name hijacking, Respondent must show knowledge on the part of the complainant of the Respondent’s right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name and evidence of harassment or similar conduct by the Complainant in the fact of such knowledge.”); see also Labrada Bodybuilding Nutrition, Inc. v. Glisson, FA 250232 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 28, 2004) (finding that complainant engaged in reverse domain name hijacking where it used “the Policy as a tool to simply wrest the disputed domain name in spite of its knowledge that the Complainant was not entitled to that name and hence had no colorable claim under the Policy”).


Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED. The Panel further finds that Complainant engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.'


Case #35 adjudicate.org.au The Complainant is Adjudicate Today Pty Limited of Mona Vale, New South Wales, Australia represented by Moray & Agnew, Australia. The domain, adjudicate.org.au. Futureworld Consultancy (Pty) Limited v. Online Advice, WIPO Case No. D2003-0297 states that a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking may be made if the Complainant “knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered or used in bad faith”. Given that the Complainant would have been aware that the Respondent had a more than negligible adjudication business in Australia at the time the Complaint was filed, the Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant knew or should have known that it could not prove that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that this is an instance of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.


Case #36 Joopa.com Complainant is Edward Smith (“Complainant”), represented by Kuscha Abhyanker of Raj Abhyanker P.C., California, USA. “the Complainant filed its trademark application shortly after it was unable to acquire the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent on acceptable terms. 'The panel finds that failing in this effort, the Complainant undertook to use the Policy to acquire the Disputed Domain Name.” “The panel finds that the Complaint has attempted reverse domain name hijacking in violation of the Rules.”


Case #37 PoliceAuction.com Complainant is Vortal Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Roger N. Behle Jr., of Behle Law Corporation, 575 Anton Boulevard, Suite 710, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. 'Moreover, the Panel finds that filing a UDRP proceeding - which on its face can be qualified as frivolous - without any basis to do so should be construed in the present case as harassing. Here, Complainant admitted it knew that the domain name was registered prior to its using the at-issue mark in commerce. When, as in the present case, Complainant is unable to show trademark rights through use or otherwise which predate registration of the at-issue domain name, then it becomes impossible for it to prevail. In the case before the Panel, there is no way that Complainant could have reasonably expected to prevail and its counsel should have known better.' Vortal Group, Inc. is a convicted Reverse Domain Name Hijacker and 'counsel should have known better'


Case #38 Opulence.com Complainant is Horizon Publishing, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Marc J. Kesten of Marc J. Kesten, P.L., Florida, USA.
Horizon Publishing, LLC of Fort Lauderdale, Florida is the latest to be labeled a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER by the governing body.


Case #39 Avayo.net Complainant is Avaya Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Joseph Englander of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Florida, USA. “The Respondent correctly notes that the Complainant has previously filed domain name cases, and lost in two of such cases when it brought proceedings against legitimate businesses such as the Respondent. See Avaya Inc. v. Sudhir Sazena, FA 1229266 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 9, 2008); and Avaya Inc. v. Moayyad Hamad, FA 1456063 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2012). ” “Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complaint was submitted in an attempt to hijack Respondent’s domain name” Avaya Inc. is a convicted Reverse Domain Name Hijacker


Case #40 hivinnocencegrouptruth.com and hivinnocenceprojecttruth.com. Office of Medical & Scientific Justice, Inc. represented by Matthew H. Swyers of The Trademark Company, LLC, Virginia, USA. was found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) in attempted theft of the domain names.


My hope is this is the last RDNH case I will ever have to post. The reality is this post will be re-posted EVERY SINGLE TIME there is a case of RDNH. Every time and now maybe some value based companies will think twice before flirting with this tactic and come to the bargaining table un good faith instead of being labeled forever with bad faith. The net is written in INK!


THOU SHALT NOT STEAL! Stop trying to steal and start doing BUSINESS! Feel free to repost FAR and WIDE!


Rick Schwartz